The "unquote" of the day. Seeing as how Screwtape is a demon and looks at the world in ways we're not supposed to, it would help to have an opposite quote every once in a while. I think this one is a good candidate: "To my class, we made it! We're awesome!" --graduating senior at prestigious girls school in her address to the students. I'm definitely not saying this quote is 'evil.' It's just so misplaced, like that the level of pride in an accomplishment is really based in one's own skill rather than the assistance, patience, and hard work of others combined with (at least in this school's case) the incredible blessing of being in a prestigious private school. Alright, the more I think about this, the more I realize it's not even misplaced, just superficial. Not saying anything, really. Speaking of not saying anything, this blog entry is about nothing.

whoa! i'm trying to post from my PC at home and it looks pretty terrible but functions better compared to my Mac at work. I wonder how much simply has to do with using IE here and Safari at work. Safari is sooooo much faster and better, but this is pretty cool (i think the microsoft guys in black suits are coming my way to 'correct' my thinking). so, it's pretty late... like after 3am...and i have many things on my mind, things in addition to headache. the headache is due to many miles of bikeriding in the sun today. things i'm thinking about: 1. after the message tonight at big vineyard, i'm wondering if it's time to just go off to l'abri permenantly. no really. the message was about missions, and i know this is a particular mission i've always felt--working with those who have questions, real questions, and can't find anywhere to answer them. i just wonder if the process of getting involved is worth it. it seems pretty lonely for the staff, unfortunately, but totally 'up my alley' as b would say. so much work and time would be needed to commit to doing something like that for years. it's terribly exciting and threatening at the same time. 2. i still wonder what the point is of church. while i know this is not a very original line of thinking for me, i think i've seen smore of the advantages/disadvantages of both big and large gatherings. i think ultimately we all want someplace we can feel like we're being ourselves, without pretense, and people love and accept us. but to what extent should be expect love and caring and proximity of life? individualism, while more comfortable on some levels, really is a barrier to true openness, even in churchy groups. but you can't force down the walls of individualism very quickly.... also, i feel like i have gifts and talents i could add to any group--that scream to be used--and other things i feel like others could be using, and they/I don't seem to really have the opportunity to spread wings and fly in current contexts. is this just another circumstance where dying to self is the only important thing and eveyrthing else is subordinated to it? 2b. is geographical proximity an essential part of becoming authentic and building genuine community? maybe a better question is, without spending time with each other at all parts of the day, ina variety of contexts, and in both good and bad times is it possible to move into intimate community wherein people become missional and partners about transforming their neighborhood? or is this not really the point of community? can community still be powerful and effective at 'arm's length' when i only see you sporadically and only in one context? alrighty, i'm so sleepy. i wonder if these questions can be augmented later. yikes, it's nearly 3:30am.

But this is the real Quote of the Day, Friday, June 27, 2003 "The will of the world is always a will to death, a will to suicide. We must not accept this suicide, and we must so act that it cannot take place. So we must know what is the actual form of the world's will to suicide in order that we oppose it, in order that we may know how, and in what direction, we ought to direct our efforts. The world is neither capable of preserving itself, nor is it capable of finding remedies for its spiritual situation (which controls the rest). It carries the weight of sin, it is the realm of satan which leads it toward separation from God and consequently toward death. That is all that it is able to do. Thus it is not for us to construct the City of God, to build up an "Order of God" within this world, without taking note of its suicidal tendencies. Our concern should be to place ourselves at the very point where this suicidal desire is most active, in the actual form it adopts and to see how God's will of preservation can act in this given situation. ...we are then obliged to understand the depth and the spiritual reality of the mortal tendency of this world; it is to this that we ought to direct all our efforts...." --Jacques Ellul, _The Presence of the Kingdom, 2nd ed. (1989). pp. 19.

I was going to also add--and this should have been my earlier post--some lyrics off of the new David Wilcox album "Into the Mystery" that relate to your brilliant Chesterton quote. Out of the Question by David Wilcox Case closed. I was certain in my youth God knows, I had my scientific proof In my mind, I thought I saw the truth Never looked beyond my lenses; never saw that it was you Out of the question So the answer I could never see Out of the question I look for you and you find me Out of the question You're closer than the air I breath But out of the question And into the mystery My heart - brings me to my knees There's God: the forest for the trees Move me, like the wind will stir the leaves I give way to the mystery like the branches in the breeze and I'm... Out of the question Catch the wind inside my fist? No it's Out of the question Try to trap you and I know I've missed Out of the question The place you will always be, is Out of the question And into the mystery Truth is there for finding, but the logic that's involved is a mystery unwinding, not a problem to be solved Out of the question I look for You, and You find me Out of the question In truth you will always be Out of the question You're closer than the air I breath Out of the question... and Into the mystery!

bsp: good quotes! from what i know of larry crabb, he seems to be a man who's actually lived out the things he espouses--something that makes the words all that much more powerful. I was listening to the Indigo Girls and remembered really loving the lyrics to "Left me a Fool." Not something directly applicable to everyone, but good stuff, nonetheless. I'm not sure how earth-shatteringly philosophical, but really authentic and somehow quietly profound: Left Me A Fool Words and Music: Emily Saliers Everybody loves you and they want to know your story You go riding out a mystery concealed in all your glory But when it comes to flesh and bones you remind me of Shalot Only made of shadows even though you're not I remember how I spent all my energy and time With affected conversation trying to pry inside your mind You are as brilliant as truth and empty as a shell And I came to you one night and it made me feel like hell Oh, to reach through all your surface Just to find an empty pool And to suffer all your pride as I lay down by your side And you swallowed up my heart and left me a fool Left me a fool Everybody loves a hero an image to create Antithesis of everything inside theirselves they hate But you'd better close your eyes when it's time for them to die Cause you'd hate to think the life we built upon them was a lie Oh, to reach through all your surface Just to find an empty pool And to suffer all your pride as I lay down by your side And you swallowed up my heart and left me a fool Left me a fool I resign myself to silence I will never blow your cover No one ever has to know who the hero took for lover But it comes to mind as you blaze on as brilliant as a star How many you've left behind, how many casualties there are To reach through all your surface Just to find an empty pool And to suffer all your pride as I lay down by your side And you swallowed up my heart and left me a fool Left me a fool

"Poetry is sane because it floats easily on an infinite sea; reason seeks to cross it and so make it finite... as long as there is mystery, there is health." ~ GK Chesterton This is another line used by Larry Crabb in his article from that journal. He is discusing the role of mystery in faith as his life experience has seen it be played out over the years. He says that he reached a point after about thirty years of being a Christian, where he just became disillusioned. One aspect he discusses is how he used to think of doubt as an enemy of faith instead of a doorway into deeper mysteries of it. DA Carson says that postmodernists fear certainty. I would add that in contrast, Christians fear doubt. The craziest part is that God is the end of both those fears if they are actually redeemed and followed out.

Quote for today, Thursday, June 26 [this is only a section of an article that you should read]: "I don't really know why someone thought it was necessary to do a poll to see just who were the most disliked groups in society, but the results are in. While serial killers and IRS agents still come in last, hot on their heels are evangelical Christians. Not Christians in general. Not Roman Catholics. Not all Christians, but evangelical Christians." --excerpted from Why Do They Hate Us? Evangelical Christians are almost universally disliked. Is there a good reason? by Michael Spencer. http://www.internetmonk.com/hateus.html

"When we value an experience of the Spirit over the transformation by the Spirit, we run the considerable risk of experiencing something other than the true Spirit of God and never really changing... Authentic transformation reverses the direction of the soul's energy." ~ Larry Crabb, "Dark Nights, Bright Mornings", Conversations Journal, vol. I, pg 21 I love this quote because at its core it is getting at the object and end of what we seek in relating to God. Do we seek an experience and so what we can get for ourselves, or do we seek transformation and so the conformity to a more important end? Dude, you would love this new journal. It's considered a Christian psychology journal, but it is so practical. It's all interviews or requested articles from respected Christian counselors on issues of soul transformation. I question what that means, but take it to refer to a revival of pastoral counseling that has gotten cheapened over the years. Pretty good stuff.

if you haven't already noticed, we're on the "new version" of blogger. i don't really know if it will matter that much, but there you are. if you know of anyone who knows HTML and wants to make this site prettier, please feel free to introduct them to the blog and let me know how we can accommodate their fab design and programming skills. if i knew any HTML at all, i would be totally changing this up. but alas. I forgot my Jacques Ellul book for the day, so I guess I'm going to have to find a new source for my daily quote. This could be dangerous. Please bear with me.

And, to illustrate some of the Ellul stuff I mentioned, here's the quote for today, Wednesday, June 25: "In reality, the problem that confronts us is that of the Chrsitian ethic, an ethic which has nothing in common with what is called general morality and still less with the Christian values in the traditional sense. ... At heart, this is a fight of faith: individual, and in the presence of God; and a living attitude, adopted according to the measure of faith of each person, and as the result of his or her faith. ... Thus we can never make a complete and valid description of the ethical demands of God, any more than we can reach its heart. We can only define its outline, and its conditions, and study some of its elements for purposes of illustration. "The heart of this ethic may be expressed thus: it is based upon an "agonistic" way of life; that is to say, the Christian life is always an "agony" [literally in Greek: a contest/wrestling]: that is, a final decisive conflict; thus it means that constant and actual presence in our hearts of the two elements of judgement and of grace. But it is this very fact that ensures our liberty. We are free, because at every moment in our lives we are both judged and pardoned, and are consequently placed in a new situation, free from fatalism, and from the bondage of sinful habits. ...this is enough to show us that the whole Christian attitude is in direct relation with the act of God in Jesus Christ." --Jacques Ellul, _The Presence of the Kingdom_, 2nd ed. (1989). pp. 12-13.

response to "victimization as a worldview" good title, by the way. i think this is a grad school paper waiting to happen. a book even. (1) let me begin by saying i think this is an excellent topic and one that i have not attempted to think through enough. this has got to be the best ground-up discussion that i've even heard on this topic from a christian perspective. (2) it seems like jacques ellul's whole life was to some extent focused on exploring this question. The Presence of the Kingdom directly and philosophically deals with this exact issue. He sets up what he believes is the role of the disciple in society based on God's will for the world and then critiques the world through that same view. It feels almost like reading Isaiah when you're reading that book. So as a "look here for better stuff" recommendation, I would point directly to this book I'm reading. (3) there are so many terms i'd want to have defined in this article... dialectic and injustice would be two. There are two main definitions to 'dialectic': one is the Hegelian definition that simply means two competing ideologies that eventually synthesize. The other is the Marxian definition that adds notions of dire conflict, Darwinian struggle for supremacy, etc. In Hegelian terms, both the thesis and its anti-thesis might compromise into the synthesis; in Marxist terms, there is only antagonistic struggle where one side eventually wins. It seems like in this article, we're talking about "dialectical materialism" or Marxism. (4) Jacques Ellul points out that there is a dialectic to the Christian life--if by dialectic we are talking about two seemingly compelling and somewhat opposing ideals. We have the command to be 'in the world.' We have the command to be not 'of the world.' We are not to be 'conformed;' we are to be 'transformed.' The Kingdom is Now. The Kingdom is Not Yet. So if, and only if, the dialectic we are talking about is already assuming--is built upon the foundations of--desiring to know and do the Will of God, then it seems like we should address things as a dialectic. But unlike both Hegelian idealist dialecticism and Marxian materialist dialecticism, we are caught in a divinely instigated paradox--a "Both-And" tension. Ellul calls it the "Agonistic" (not agnostic or antagonistic--which is how I read it the first time) path of the Christian. The Agonistic path rejects either pole of the dialectic as sufficient--we can neither see things as people "of the world" (under which I would toss things like dialectical materialism) nor as people not "in the world" (under which I would toss the desire to shuck personal responsibility for the plight of the poor and "oppressed"). So, to sum up, I would say that Ellul does a better job of speaking about these issues than I ever could. If I understand what he's saying correctly, there is a responsibility for Christians who desire to do the will of God (the ideal) to see where their world is now (one side of a dialectic) and to pray and act toward the other end of the dialectic--ultimately realizing that the role of the Christian is revolutionary and transformative but MUST remain "in the world." This series of points might be somewhat different in focus than what your article was addressing...I'm not sure if you can see value in them. I just thought that so much of what you're talking about is exactly the same as what this book by Ellul is addressing.

AN ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF THE IDEAL AND THE COUNTER-IDEAL: A LOOK AT VICTIMIZATION AS WORLDVIEW Dude, Iím trying to put to words to some of my thoughts about victimization and community development, but already, I feel inadequate to approach itÖ Iíd love your help in thinking this out. Sorry itís so long: ------------- As Christians, I think it is important that in developing our analysis of culture and its relationships, we start with what is of primary importance in trying to come to reasonable solutions for how to stand and develop. What is of primary importance is Godís will. When we start with what is of secondary importance, we quickly develop a dialectical worldview, rooting our solutions in our own strength, and becoming more divisive than redemptive in what we develop. The whole framework of Victimization is the dialectic. I love the dialectic as a means for analysis of power roles in a current context. I think Marx and most philosophers use contrast to bring out an emphasis for discussion. But itís when the dialectic becomes a standard for viewing the world that its limits affect worldviews and apply them to our understanding of whatís real. I loved your questions about community development and I really latched onto your movement of them. Thatís why I outlined them. I thought it was a classic set up to the way I would want to construct arguments. So when I titled the sections, I was as much thinking about general arguments as the one that is filled in with your questions. You started with the ideal. Thatís perfect to me, because it is the point we seek. The ideal is Godís desire. And Godís desire is reality. Reality starts with God. Itís the ìMatrixî though, ëcause we are fallen and so only know this by His revealing it to us. In and of ourselves, we fall short of this. So, if we start with ourselves we only define reality by the fallen-short-ideals. But Godís ideals donít go away just because we start with our falleness. As CS Lewis argued, there are moral absolutes that everyone knows. But because God intended for our state to be one of dependency and for our lifestyle to flow out of that state, the point of being given ideals is not to succeed, but to serve. If God didnít desire dependency, if He instead allowed us real independency, then the point would be success. We would know the ideals as only the law, and it would demand our perfection of the ideals. Service would have to be synonymous with success, and there would only be a knowledge of justice and injustice in the world. This would be a perfect dialectic. But God does desire dependency. He didnít let us only fall short of the ideals and independently of Him relate from the standing of injustice. He succeeded where we couldnít. So our ìsuccessî is now only possible in the fallen state when itís from dependence on His success. The point of our living is now not to succeed (as if we have it in us to live out the ideals of Godís will, His law), it is rather to serve and to watch God succeed through us. Service flows out of the state of dependency God desires in the Christian life and is the language of grace. So, this is the ideal, itís Godís will, itís the staring place for approaching tough spots like those we would quickly call Victimizations. This is the place of primary importance in deciding what is real. Tim Keller, a Presbyterian pastor in New York, said that ìoptimism is naÔve, but pessimism is atheisticî. The tough thing is that we eventually see clearly our fallenness. We become aware of sin. And outside of redemption thereís only two things you can do with it. You can chop it up into many little pieces and create the false impression that now itís ìmanageableî. Ie. sin isnít a nature, itís now hate, pride, oppression, injustice, ignorance, poverty, unhappiness, or whatever your dispositionÖ And all these are things that in ìour strengthî we can approach. The other option is to universalize sin and make it the base of reality so that all things are defined by sin and so sin basically ceases to exist before any higher ideal or a larger base for reality, because ìitís the way things areî. My impression is that this is at the heart of existentialism, both theistic and atheistic. There, my limitations become the norm by which everything else is arranged, including God. I wonder if you could argue somewhere that most Man-centered Christians are naively optimistic and have a reductionistic view of sin, but most Man-centered nonChristians are atheistic and have a secularized view of sin. But the ideal starts with God, it is God-centered and what He wants is of primary importance. Victimization is the counter-ideal. The dialectic is a fallen-short-ideal that describes well some of the power relations that exist in the current context. But it is not an ideal that you can start with. It is therefore of secondary importance in terms of its role as a starting place for analysis. The dialectic at best can help contextualize the ideals of primary importance. The law of presupposition, as I understand it, basically says that where you start in doctrine, there youíll end up as well. The starting place serves as the base and all things built on that base are supported by it and constructed from it. If you begin a worldview with the dialectic you will divide. If you begin with the infinite-personal God, you will see things as they relate wholistically under Him. Victimization is a dialectic. It is a current dialectic that has been accepted as the base for building a worldview. When applied to our society, we see the sexes defined not by ìan ontological equality and an economic diversityî, but by the oppressor and the oppressed. Human sexuality is a dialectical fight, not a unified picture of humanity. In similar ways, race is defined by the oppressed and the oppressor, class is defined by the oppressed and the oppressor, wealth is defined by the oppressed and the oppressor, knowledge is defined by the oppressed and the oppressor, power is defined by the oppressed and the oppressor, and quite often God gets defined as the oppressed and oppressor. The dialectic as a starting place ends with the dialectic. So, a first response might seem to be, ìWhat wrong with that? Thatís the way things are, right?î Itís interesting because I would argue that in the human spirit there is a need for redemption and there is an innate awareness of our standing in injustice before the Lord. It makes me think of that Schuchardt quote. When we deny sin and accept our independence as the reality in which we dwell, we donít lose the need for redemption. We instead only reduce it to a more manageable level. ìMake the spiritual private and the material public and then conquer the material injustices and that is redemption.î But James says that if you lack wisdom, you should go to the Lord. (James 1:5-7). Thatís where wisdom starts. Without it, he reasons you are double-minded, divided, and I might add: defined by a dialectic. Paul says in 2Corinthians 10:12 that he acts in the wisdom that is from the Lord, and not like some ìwise menî who judge themselves by themselves, ëcause thatís not really wisdom. If they are themselves the starting place, then their limitations are of primary importance and God is of secondary importance. So, when someone says, ìthatís the way things areî, I want to know by what ideal they are building that view. Victimization is deceiving because we connect with itís analysis of injustice. We resonate with the need for redemption. We believe that it is describing the way things are, when in fact it is describing the way things are not. The counter-ideal is not how things are, it is how things are not. Therefore, a dialectical analysis is always reactive. It is secondary. It points to the primary, but not because we start with the secondary and get it. The law of presupposition makes that clear. But we start with the primary as revealed by the Beginner of all things and then contextualize it with good contrasts. So, how could I summarize this? Again, I would say that as Christians, I think it is important that in developing our analysis of culture and its relationships, we start with what is of primary importance in trying to come to reasonable solutions for how to stand and develop. What is of primary importance is Godís will. When we start with what is of secondary importance, we quickly develop a dialectical worldview, rooting our solutions in our own strength, and becoming more divisive than redemptive in what we develop. ----------------- In essence, E, Iíve just thought out loud about the first two roman numerals of the outline I made of your questions. The ìhowî of this still begs to be thought out. And Iím interested in trying that too. But first I want to see how you resonate with this explanation of the setup. And Iíd love to hear what wording you would use to say some of these same things.

woops. i posted twice. hi there. thanks for reading. have a nice day. don't panic.

it's officially summer. sheesh! It's supposed to be 90 degrees here today and there's already a fair amount of fear in the air about the reprisal of West Nile Virus >http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/06/06/west.nile.preview/index.html I like the quote from the guy at the end of the article--apparently about 100,000 times the amount of people die from the flu each year as die from West Nile Virus. Why, then, does it make the news? quote for today, tuesday, june 24th (I'm still on that Jacques Ellul kick): "What I have just described ('do not be conformed') could not originate from a particular understanding or from an exceptional science; it was the 'renewing of your understanding'--that is, the point of departure lies higher than the action which I described [a Marxist revolution]. What is necessary is a change in understanding (of things, of people, of situations), which is more than a change in method! That is to say, everything has to be brought into the light of Jesus Christ. This involves a lucidity (which the best observers never attain, and which in reality was that of the prophets) and a new way of understanding. "This renewal of understanding corresponded for me with the commandment to love God with...all one's thought. It appeared to me that it did not mean simply to study theology and become a minister! To love God with one's thoughts was to place one's thoughts at the service of God's work in the world, through the medium of the believer. And this work pertained to the political as well as to the psychological! This gospel, which today transforms not only hearts but also minds, would then enable believers to change the world. "This change in understanding had to correspond, finally to what God wills for this world; it had to be pleasing to God; and it had to be well done. consequently, for example, a revolution for justice resulting in millions of deaths could be neither pleasing to God nor 'well done.' Increasing communication many times over in order to say nothing could not be considered loving your neighbor...." --Jacques Ellul, The Presence of the Kingdom, 2nd. ed 1989, pp. xii-xiii.

please, please, please read this article: http://www.razormouth.com/archives/00000070.htm me likey.

Quote for today (and for friday) Monday, June 23, 2003 Jacques Ellul rocks. The book of his that I'm reading now _The Presence of the Kingdom_ should be required reading in any theology, Christian sociology, divinity, etc. program. So far, I've been continually going "whoa" on just about every page. So forgive me if I post tons of quotes just from that book daily. On second thought, don't forgive me... actually go out and get and then read the book. It's not too long--130 pages--and is pretty much the introduction to all of his other thoughts. Why is Ellul so significant? I'll have to address that question later. Here's the quote: "Well, I needed a key to use--as a guide as a compass, and also as an intellectual tool. I was hesitating, considering several themes and methods, when I was struck by Paul's words in Romans 12.2--'Do not be conformed to this present age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may discern the will of God, what is good, what is pleasing to him, and what is well done.' In this text there were three imperatives for me that I had to try to follow from then on, and for which I had to find methods adequate for the situation today. "'Do not be conformed to this age'--but there are two possible conformities. One is voluntary adherence (and for this, it suffices to know political programs, economic plans, doctrines). But that which above all drew me and seemed to me to fit in with Paul's level of thinking was the second: unconscious and involuntary adherence to what in this present age is so obvious that we don't think about it.--to those unstated rules, those taboos, those undiscussed truths; that which makes up the subconscious and unconscious of a community. The 'present age' is filled with these evidences. "I completely refused, however, the interpretation which views this 'present age' (aiÙn) as a kind of metaphysical reality, opposed to the Kingdom to come, and always in the same manifestation: this present age was neither the specific age in which Paul lived, nor a mysterious entity always the same--for me, the meaning is that each generation has to recognize that it is a question of its own age. "From that point on, I had to apply myself in discerning what were the foundations, the structures, the make-up of the present age: that is to say, of the twentieth century. In order to do that I had, on the one hand, to know the most important facts, but on the other hand, to interpret them in an exact manner. But the 'scientific' method of the social sciences seemed inadequate to me....It is thus that I chose the questions which I dealt with in this book." --Jacques Ellul, The Presence of the Kingdom, 2nd. ed. (1989), pp. xi-xii.

whoa. it's weird to see it in outline form. i have no idea what that means, but it makes it look all official-like. i'm still lead to say "so what" out of those questions. the way i think--sometimes i get to the end of a thought and then realize that so many questions make the problem seem unsolvable. i'm curious as to why you decided to set the thoughts up in this sort of a structure and what it means....

ECONOMIC COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I.The Ideal ìIt seems fair to say that the context of discipleship/service makes all the difference. People should give, not because they are compelled by humans but because they are compelled out of their debt to God or their love for others.î II. The Counter-Ideal A. Current Context îBut what about the context that de Toqueville was writing out of--a political context that seems to be placing faith in God as a secondary issue? (Arguably the case America finds itself in today.) Can 'We the People...' allow something like laise-faire "liberty"--i.e., opportunistism, selection, adaptation, etc.--run the day?î B. Resulting View: Victimization (judging ourselves by ourselves: 2Cor. 10:12) Isn't, as Engles said, the profit of the rich built upon the backs of the poor? Is there not a 'closed' economic system wherein every opportunity taken by a successful business person is crafted by taking advantage of someone else? III. Ideal vs. Reality Or is America truly a "meritocracy" where those who succeed do so because they were somehow more skilled or better prepared? Do the poor deserve it? Do the rich? IV. The Gaping Result And if there is not a 100% correlation between what an individual "has" and what they've "earned" where is that difference made up? V. Purpose in the Gap Is it God's will that some are poor and others rich? VI. The ëHowí of Purpose Is it the responsibility of the rich to help the poor? Is it the responsibility of the government to enforce redistribution of wealth? Or should the government lower taxes, cut programs like welfare (or privatize them), and only spend tax dollars on things that "everyone" uses anyway, like roads, sewer systems, international space stations, M1A1 Abrams tanks, and elementary schools?

Quote for today, June 19th, 2003 [As a note before the actual quote, I just want to stress that not everything I read I actually "believe in." In fact, it may be fair to say that I argue with the things that I read more than I accept them. Hopefully, no one could accuse me of swimming in the shallow end of the pool--exposing myself only to the things that I already agree with. Anyway, this quote is one of those I find really disturbing, not because it's out there at all or that it's ridiculous. It's distasteful because it poses more problems than it solves, but is posited as "the solution to the origins of life on Earth." And tons of really significant people--astronomer Fred Hoyle and discoverer of the DNA structure Francis Crick to name but a few--completely buy into this theory. The obvious problem, of course, is that it only pushes the origin of life into a new cloud of unknowing. The argument goes like this: life is complex--far to complex to have arisen in the 400 million to 1.2 billion years that geologists think Earth was habitable--and therefore we need an informational source for this complexity. If neo-Darwinism promoted life from non-life and that is effectively discredited, then life must have come from life. So someone must have created it. But because we are not willing to leave a naturalist metaphysic--are not willing to admit to a Creator operating through whatever means in a unique way, a non-testable, non-observable way to fashion nature--we have to defer the origin of life to someplace outside of Earth proper. But as a chemist friend reminded me the other day, "At some point, time = 0. There was a big bang." Therefore life had to originate at some time, and we currently don't have enough time or enough information input to account for what we have sitting here in front of this computer monitor. "All my people right here, right now...d'ya know what I mean?"] The quote: "The first point, which deals with the origin of life on Earth, is known as panspermia ? literally, "seeds everywhere." Its earliest recorded advocate was the Greek philosopher Anaxagoras, who influenced Socrates. However, Aristotle's theory of spontaneous generation came to be preferred by science for more than two thousand years. Then on April 9, 1864, French chemist Louis Pasteur announced his great experiment disproving spontaneous generation as it was then held to occur. In the 1870s, British physicist Lord Kelvin and German physicist Hermann von Helmholtz reinforced Pasteur and argued that life could come from space. And in the first decade of the 1900s, Swedish chemist and Nobel laureate Svante Arrhenius theorized that bacterial spores propelled through space by light pressure were the seeds of life on Earth. But in the 1920s, Russian biochemist Alexander Oparin and English geneticist J.B.S. Haldane, writing independently, revived the doctrine of spontaneous generation in a more sophisticated form. In the new version, the spontaneous generation of life no longer happens on Earth, takes too long to observe in a laboratory, and has left no clues about its occurrence. Supporting this theory, in 1953, American chemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey showed that some amino acids can be chemically produced from amonia and methane. That experiment is now famous, and the Oparin - Haldane paradigm still prevails today. Starting in the 1970s, British astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe rekindled interest in panspermia. By careful spectroscopic observation and analysis of light from distant stars they found new evidence, traces of life, in the intervening dust. They also proposed that comets, which are largely made of water-ice, carry bacterial life across galaxies and protect it from radiation damage along the way. One aspect of this research program, that interstellar dust and comets contain organic compounds, has been pursued by others as well. It is now universally accepted that space contains the "ingredients" of life. This development could be the first hint of a huge paradigm shift. But mainstream science has not accepted the hard core of modern panspermia, that whole cells seeded life on Earth." --excerpted from "Introduction: More than Panspermia" by Brig Klyce, http://www.panspermia.org/intro.htm

About de Toqueville and liberty: It seems fair to say that the context of discipleship/service makes all the difference. Only under the context of "right conception of humankind" does laise-faire economics work--only when the eternal and absolute emphasis is on God and others vs. absolute emphasis on the individual self does "liberty" under this definition work. It seems clear in Isaiah and in the Gospels that the Jewish authorities were chastized by God for forgetting their perpetual debt to him and therefore making their own hearts and governments focused on acquisition rather than equality. Like Solzhenitsyn said (I think), "When people forget God, tyrants forge their chains." In the context of the Church, as it seems like the book of Acts indicates, none should starve, none should be without clothes or love. People should give, not because they are compelled by humans but because they are compelled out of their debt to God or their love for others. To set up 'rules' in those circumstances seem to be counterproductive or even counter to the Good News. But what about the context that de Toqueville was writing out of--a political context that seems to be placing faith in God as a secondary issue? (Arguably the case America finds itself in today.) Can 'We the People...' allow something like laise-faire "liberty"--i.e., opportunistism, selection, adaptation, etc.--run the day? Isn't, as Engles said, the profit of the rich built upon the backs of the poor? Is there not a 'closed' economic system wherein every opportunity taken by a successful business person is crafted by taking advantage of someone else? Or is America truly a "meritocracy" where those who succeed do so because they were somehow more skilled or better prepared? Do the poor deserve it? Do the rich? And if there is not a 100% correlation between what an individual "has" and what they've "earned" where is that difference made up? Is it God's will that some are poor and others rich? Is it the responsibility of the rich to help the poor? Is it the responsibility of the government to enforce redistribution of wealth? Or should the government lower taxes, cut programs like welfare (or privatize them), and only spend tax dollars on things that "everyone" uses anyway, like roads, sewer systems, international space stations, M1A1 Abrams tanks, and elementary schools? Just some questions.

Quote for today, June 18th, 2003 "The notion of theft is based on the idea of ownership and property rights. People from many non-western cultures would find this entire discussion quite curious, since in much of the world the idea of collective accretion of ideas and form is dominant, and the construct of individual creativity that dominates in the US and Europe is not emphasized. The idea of ownership of form even begins to fade as we leave the world of art, design, and related commerce here in the US. The thought that someone was first to create an 'I [heart symbol] someplace-or-something' bumper sticker has probably never occurred to most owners of [those] bumper stickers. Even if the original and its originator were pointed out, the idea that their 'I [heart symbol] someplace-or-something else' bumper sticker steals something from Milton Glaser would probably seem quite foreign. The right to profit from an invention by means of ownership of rights to the invention is widespread in our culture; I'm not sure the same idea applied to aesthetic or communicative configuration is." --excerpt from "What's Wrong with Plagiarism" by Gunnar Swanson, 2001 (Milton Glaser created the "I [heart symbol] NY" logo that was used by the New York State Tourism Board for over a decade.)

My quote from this weekend: EQUALITY AND CONTEXT De Toqueville on Equality ìNow, I know of only two methods of establishing equality in the political world; rights must be given to every citizen, or none at all to anyoneÖ There is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality that incites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. This passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom. Not that those nations whose social condition is democratic naturally despise liberty; on the contrary, they have an instinctive love of it. But liberty is not the chief and constant object of their desire; equality is their idol: they make rapid and sudden efforts to obtain liberty and, if they miss their aim, resign themselves to their disappointment; but nothing can satisfy them without equality, and they would rather perish than lose it.î >I read this observation and think of the political debates in America today, 150 years later. It seems we debate two different ideas of equality. On the one hand, equality is defined as being found in the area of opportunity, allowing some to bear fruit of power and others to forsake it. This definition heightens the idea of individual liberty. On the other hand, equality is defined in the area of power, groping for all to stand on equal footing and with equal ownership of voice. This definition heightens the idea of individual rights. >But it also seems to me that the first is a proactive statement about equality and the second can only be reactive. The context makes all the difference for the validity of such a discussion. In a context where people live out service in even a minority of fashion, the fruit of those who successfully grasp each opportunity will find surplus to give. I might call this a Christian context. If this context is taken away, a chasm is created between the ìsuccessfully opportunistic and the unsuccessfulî. A redefinition of equality ensues, marking no one in the light of opportunity toward service, instead only seeing the double-mindedness of equality in society as a fight between the oppressor and the oppressed. >De Toqueville, as a socialist and here it seems, is discussing equality as found in the area of power, but the apostle Paul talks of it in the area of opportunity, if I am reading 2Cornthians 8 correctly. This context makes all the difference. De Toqueville on the Context ìOn the other hand, in a state where the citizens are all practically equal, it becomes difficult for them to preserve their independence against the aggressions of power. No one among them being strong enough to engage in the struggle alone with advantage, nothing but a general combination can protect their libertyÖ The Anglo-Americans are the first nation who, having been exposed to this formidable alternative, have been happy enough to escape the dominion of absolute power. [In praise of the Republic in the 1830s]. They have been allowed by their circumstances, their origin, their intelligence, and especially by their morals to establish and maintain the sovereignty of the people.î

Why are the "enter" keys not working in the posts anymore??

So, speaking of that David Wilcox song you posted [rock on by the way]. In my free-spirited thinking of random ass-ociations, I was immediately cast into a longing to read a poem I loved by Gary Soto. I will now share it with you. :) MAGNETS I click the plastic faces of kewpie dolls/ Together ñ they want to kiss but canít./ The magnets behind their heads have died/ Out, and wouldnít pull up iron fillings/ From the loosest dirt, let alone show/ Affection, smack lips or clunk heads/ And make my bashful nephew say,/ Ah, thatís for sissies./ They stare at each other,/ Shyly with hands behind their backs,/ Black lash of youth, pink cheeks of first time./ But itís over for them. The magnets/ Have died out. I drink my coffee/ And think of old girlfriends,/ How we too clunked heads together,/ Kissed and clunked until the pull of love/ Stopped and we just looked./ Sometimes magnets fall from our heads,/ Settle in our hips. Beds are ruined/ This way. Books tumble from crowded shelves/ When couples clunk waists together,/ With the women looking at ceilings,/ Men at loose hair on pillows,/ And then itís the other way around./ But magnets die out. They grow heavy,/ These stones that could sharpen knives/ Or bring faces together for one last kiss./ For years I thought iron lived forever,/ Certainly longer than love. Now I have doubts./ The kewpie dolls, set on starched doilies/ On my grandmotherís television,/ Smile but donít touch. The paint is flaking,/ Dust is a faint aura of loss. Grandmother loved/ Her husband for five decades, and still does,/ Poor grandpa who is gone. They worked/ Side by side in the fields, boxed raisins,/ Raised children in pairs. Now grandmother/ Wants to die but doesnít know how. / Her arms are frail, her eyes of cataract/ Canít hold a face. Hijo, hijo/ She says, and looks over my shoulder./ Itís blinding wisdom to see her on the edge/ Of her couch. The magnet is in her feet,/ Ready to gather up the earth.

I love the way you talk about Brooke, man. I am privileged to have had even the slightest taste of the glory of marriage as God desires it, through yours. Thanks for thinking out loud. In that arena, I've actually had the opposite experience lately. I found out that Sarah (in Chattanooga) has been dating a guy for quite probably the last year (meaning since just after we had our final gut wrenching conversation.) I went to bed so lonely that night. I thought I was beyond all that and open to whatever came my way. I realize now that while I've accepted that the door is closed, I have not accepted that she is anyting other than the "right" one. What a depressing place to be. Fortunately, while that is consumed a lot of my journal and prayer time, it has not consumed any of my interactions with others - at least not after that one day, last Thursday. While it seems you are blessed with the feeling of absence because of your nearness to Brooke, I am cursed with a false sense of nearness because of her absence.

and finally, perhaps the most insightful quote i've heard in the last couple of days. this is somewhat of a paraphrase: "I hate it when people say, 'Jeff you have such a gift for evangelism' because what they usually mean is, 'I don't want my life to be so radical and 'out-there', so I'm glad there are people like you to take the burden away from me doing anything.'" --Jeff Cannell, June 16, 2003.

I know this is completely unorthodox to have so many posts in the same day, but--well when it rains it pours as they say. Here's an interesting first paragraph of a longer (and very provocative) article by a former advisor of the President's: Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense? By John W. Dean (FindLaw) President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a joint resolution authorizing the use of U.S. military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake -- acts of war against another nation. Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away -- unless, perhaps, they start another war. --excerpted from http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/index.html

today is day number five without b. i can't imagine how tough death must really be--for me, she's only on a trip and is able to be talked with every day. there's something funny about absence. it's not as hard as i thought it'd be, but the things i miss most are things which are not really her tangible qualities that i could explain to someone else. they're mostly the things that are just built into her but that jump out in certain circumstances. the familiar things. the things that happen when everything else is silent. the way she laughs. the way her eyes squint when she smiles--her "east coast" look, as i call it. the way she processes things so quickly and still makes such wise decisions, as if that way of looking at things is the rightest of ways....of course everyone must act that way, but i seem to waiver between opposing viewpoints all of the time. life is noisier with her. i seem to talk to myself most of the time, but she talks to others: the cats, the plants, on the phone--not obtrusively or embarrassingly--but as a way of thinking. she's like a horse: direct, strong, fast, conscientious. and she only sometimes tramples on people :^)

Holy cow, man! You've been busy writing. Sorry I haven't been visiting lately! Sheesh! I'm doing some printing rightn now. I'll proceed with reading and try to jump back in here soon. Wow, thanks for the time and energy to share what you're reading and thinking! brad

Missed a day in there somewhere.... I guess I wasn't reading or something. Quote for both Monday and today, June 17 Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn was born in the south of Russia. At the age of twenty-six, he was sentenced to eight years of forced labor of criticizing Stalin in a letter to a friend. In 1962, the publication of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich brought him international fame. Two years later, The First Circle was accepted for publication in a Soviet journal, but was blocked by Soviet government authorities; ultimately his manuscript was smuggled abroad and published in translation in 1968. In 1970, he won the Nobel Prize for Literature. After eighteen years of living in exile in the United States, he returned to Russia in 1994. --book cover excerpt, The First Circle "Solzhenitsyn's mission in life was to speak the truth to those in power. Professor Ericson has noted that although Solzhenitsyn described the horrors of Russia's past, he always ended his books with a note of hope. In each of his writings, the root of our contemporary horrors is simply that "men have forgotten God." Change is possible however, once people put their faith in God. This insight is a profound warning not only for Solzhenitsyn's fellow Russians, but for all of us "who have ears to hear." --Dr. J. Bernbaum, RACU, Alexander Solzhenitsyn: Repentance and Moral Renewal, 1998.

Quote for today, Friday, June 13th!!!!! GAAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHHH! on this suitably dreary day in mid-june, i'd like to turn to a subject near and dear to mi corazon--the intersection of technology and ideology. flash back to Eisenhower's address right before the inauguration of JFK. "Although waged for many reasons, the Cold War was fundamentally a contest between economic and political systems--capitalist democracy on the one hand versus communistic totalitarianism on the other. The stakes of this contest were perceived to be so high in the United States that a national security system emerged that paradoxically flew in the face of many democratic principles and traditions. Openness and accountability in the conduct of governmental affairs, for example, were compromised in order to meet the communist challenge. Openness of knowledge and free exchange of information--fundamental ideals in science--also gave way under the imperatives of national security. President Dwight D. Eisenhower identified incisively the dangers the Cold War science-technology-military dynamic posed to democratic traditions in the United States. He did so in a nationally televised farewell address to the American people delivered only hours before he, the nation, and the world witnessed the greatest outward symbol of democracy in action--a presidential inauguration and the peaceful transfer of power from one elected government to another. Fighting the Cold War, Eisenhower said, had produced two situations unprecedented in American history: the maintenance of a large military while the United States was not officially at war, and the creation and heavy reliance upon a large, permanent armaments industry. The conjunction of these two developments posed grave threats to American democracy. "The total influence--economic, political, even spiritual--is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal Government," Eisenhower said. "In the councils of government," he cautioned, "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." A "technological revolution during recent decades," Eisenhower believed, had initiated the dynamics of the military-industrial complex. At the center of this revolution lay research, which had "become more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government." The American university, "historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery," noted the former Columbia University president Eisenhower, "has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research." The research revolution on campus had produced a dynamic whereby "a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity." Then President Eisenhower delivered his gravest warning: "The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present--and is gravely to be guarded.... [I]n holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technical elite." " --excerpted from: http://www.cmu.edu/coldwar/NSFbookl.htm

BTW, keep praying for Jennifer Palmer. Here's Marc Palmer's blog: http://www.livejournal.com/%7Epalmerlp

Quote for today, June 12, 2003 The separation of life into public and private spheres and its compartmentalization into specialized areas resulted in religious faith becoming marginalized from society and reduced to a privatized matter for like-minded individuals to pursue without imposing their views on the public sphere. Religious faith becomes relativized, helpful as a resource for coping with the crises of life, but having no legitimacy in claiming public truth...."What was 'known' with a taken-for-granted certitude becomes, at best, a 'belief.' Further along in theis process it becomes a 'religious opinion' or a 'feeling.'...The emphasis shifts from a concern with the proclamation of an objective and universal truth to a concern with the subjective applicability of truth." (quote is from James Hunter) --Ed Gibbs, Church Next: Quantum Changes in How We Do Ministry. pp. 22.

Quote for today, June 11, 2003 "One system we must replace as soon as possible is the one we have inherited from industrialization. Its central notion was that work was crucial, and what you did when you were working mattered too. Being employed was synonymous with being needed. Leisure time was when you did things like entertain yourself or look after your private life, including children and older relatives, and chores such as cooking, cleaning, and laundry. The post-industrial society must get rid of this work-based outlook. The hard bit is managing to break with the prevailing trend. All such disruptive changes have in common at least one effect: they upset people." Bodil Jˆnsson, Ten Thoughts About Time. pp. 70-71. Quote for yesterday (since i meant to start then), June 10, 2003 "I sucked The moon I spoke Too soon And how much did it cost? I was dropped from Moonbeams And sailed On shooting stars Maybe you'll be president But know right from wrong Or in the flood you'll build an Ark And sail us to the moon" Radiohead, (Brush the Cobwebs out of the Sky)

what i wanted to say is that i am going to finally give an overarching theme to the blog... bradford introduced some good quotes. i think i'll have to post a "quote of the day" from the various books & music i seem to find lying around. this explanation seems so lackluster compared to the one i wrote before. but i crashed. that superior thought is lost in the meta-world forever along with other incomplete thoughts that would change the material world if somehow they were able to be embodied. anyway: quotes. whee.

great. crashed whilst posting the last message.

BTW, Bradford. I love that quote by Read M. Schuchardt. He's the guy who runs metaphilm.com, a site that all should come to know and love. I'd love to meet him in person (i've only emailed him), but i think he's probably so smart it would make my brain hurt :^) also, david wilcox's site is www.davidwilcox.com. it's a flash site with lots of music, just so you know--if your computer takes a while to load it, wait for it. also also, his song "Hold it up to the light"--while it is much overused by us christian types--has got to be one of the best folk songs of the past 20 years. speaking of which, brdfrd, i don't know what this means, but apparently much of his writing on that album (Big Horizon) came about after reading Paul Tillich. so, proof is always in the pudding, but it's good to know there's some theology going on in there. do you feel a brotherhood with him? i feel like Bono and i would be good friends :^) maybe you and David Wilcox?

...i was thinking about David Wilcox this morning. I think I like him for much the same reason I enjoy U2--an view of God, man, and the wholegeneralsortofmishmash that I find "authentic" or "compelling." Top that off with excellent performance, humility, general appreciation for music and people, and you have a superior artist/musician, whatever. Perhaps this is an unsupportable theory, but it works for me. The lyrics below are from a song really criticizing the mainstream music industry that wants to make everyone the same and the entertainment industry in general that markets sex and sexes-up marketing--all in the name of profit or power or both. Great song. Visit his site. Buy his albums. SEX AND MUSIC (SACRED GROUND) There's no sense in talking about music, but talking of sex can be done The abstraction of music's confusing; the directness of sex is more fun And the road that will take you to both of them is known for its races and wrecks, so there's less of a mystery in music if we get some directions from sex It's too easy to stop st the surface when spirit and flesh are willing In sex, as also in music, there are layers and levels of thrilling So you've got to be honest and caring, you have to be humble and real but you've got to be fearless and daring, and find all the truth you can feel sacred ground The big machine is moving sacred ground We're standing in the way sacred ground They want to pave it over sacred ground Make it all the same At first you say you'll do it for love, but then you do it with friends but as soon as you do it for money, right there's where the innocence ends. For how will you navigate better and worse with just numbers of people to count? See, the pop charts are just cutting notches for the number of units you mount And when spirit gets lost in accounting, the counting takes its toll. You find yourself craving more numbers; it's the sex-drug of rock and roll. And it leads you to strange addictions like image and marketing spin You're just trying to get them to like you, and how could that be such a sin? [chorus] Well what do you want them to like you for, that's the question to ask Would it help you if everyone knew your face, if that face were only a mask? And why do you want them to like you, what change are you trying to bring? Do you lust after just their attention; do you want them to come when you sing? Do you wish you could capture their beauty, so that you could feel loved for an hour? The power of being attractive, or just the attraction of power? See, sex and music are much the same, we feel with hearts and skin And what you are going to get out of them both is just what you put in. [chorus] ©1999 Midnight Ocean Bonfire Music(ASCAP)/Cindy Lou My Dear (ASCAP) All Rights Reserved/International Copyright Secured

"For what the mind craves more than anything, and what the five senses are eternally trying to deliver, is a consistent pattern that reveals how and why the spiritual and physical worlds are cut from the same cloth." ~ Read Mercer Schuchardt

"If the purpose of the Gospel is to reconcile us to God and to our fellowman,if our mission is to be God's ambassadors of reconciliation, how do we fulfill that mission? It's tempting for us to start with a list of things to do. But that's not how the work of reconciliation begins. Before we can do the work of God, we must be the people of God... Our invitation to others then becomes, "Come join our fellowship". We must begin by being. Being though, is not complete until it results in doing. As James says, "Faith, if it has no works, is dead." ... Some communities reach out into their neighborhoods with social action programs, and that is great. That's part of the gospel; but it's not the whole gospel. The whole gospel speaks to both man's social needs and his spiritiual needs. If some communities make the mistake of trying to be without doing, other groups make the mistake of putting the doing ahead of the being... It's not easy to learn to strike the balance between being and doing." ~ John Perkins, With Justice For All, p 139

"Community is a messy thing." ~ Brooke Peterson "Community brings out the best in us. And the worst. Community life brings a painful revelation of our limitations, weaknesses and darkness; the unexpected discovery of the monsters within us ishard to accept. The immediate reaction is to try to destroy the monsters, or to hide them away again, pretending that they don't exist,or to flee from community life and relationships with others, or to find that the monsters are theirs, not ours. But if we accept that the monsters are there, we can let them out and learn to tame them. That is growth towards liberation." ~ John Perkins, With Justice For All, p141

i haven't been sleeping well lately. part of this has to be because bradford has left the house. there's some strange presence that a person carries with them and when there's an extra presence (someone there) or the lack thereof (when they leave), i get thrown off somehow. some explanation on the thomas kelly thing. one of kelly's big things is recognizing God moment to moment. i think he specifically was talking about having that understanding of the Presence going on underneath every activity. at first, he says, you have to be conciously redirecting your thoughts away from yourself and toward him. eventually, you will be remade so you can more often see things in that perspective rather than having to think and feel one way and then say "oh, i didn't consider what God wants" and then have to examine and adjust. it seems like kelly is saying at some point there will be a transformation where our thoughts will mirror his thoughts to some degree. thomas kelly calls this being "illumined" on the inside. almost a state of transformation from the moon only reflecting light to a candle, which is not like the sun in its luminosity, generates that same fire. theologically, i'm not sure i can see us as anything else other than moons that reflect to a greater or lesser degree depending on our distance from the son. (that's a terrible metaphor and an even worse pun, but there you are). but in either case, i'm not there yet. prayer for me is almost always a "redirecting" from where i am to where i should be. and i have to redirect myself frequently--there's not really a sense of a "mindset" that i am always looking for God to follow him. i'm not sure that there's a qualitative difference in prayer that you have to make yourself do rather than just naturally do. is there a qualitative level to prayer?

blog blog blog! why am i of the motorcycle wanting? it's strange--though totally written about in Romans--that the more i know i'm not supposed to want this thing, the more i want it. if b were to say, "no biggie, get it," i would probably lose interest. but even though i know little about "bikes", I'm researching more and more so that if the opportunity arises, i might be able to act quickly (before she changes her mind). i just wonder if i wouldn't act this way under other circumstances. and then i wonder if this is why teenagers rebel. they want because they want and the more you tell them 'no' the more they try to get away with it anyway. hmmmmmm.... way back to the church thing: heard a great sermon this weekend but left wondering if it was really worthwhile. for instance, good message, but at the end--the "application" part of the message-- we were left with three examples of "popular opinion" that is wrong: (1) naturalistic evolution (2) abortion (3) homosexual relationshps equated with heterosexual marriage. as these things were whipped out one right after the other, i thought "holy cow, all these relate to one another; knowing why (the big picture) and knowing what to do about it (the particulars) would be really helpful." But no. it was enough to say that these things are popular opinion and incorrect. it would be one thing if then the individual small groups within the church were given resources to deal with these discussions in their groups. but instead, there is this message with compelling illustrations and a call to action. but then what is the action? more protests around abortion clinics? students should argue more with their professors? more lobbying against gay rights at city hall? i guess before i was more in favor of small churches in general. i'm not sure i feel that way unequivocally now. presently, integration--a vision, plan, guidelines--from the pastors to the irregular attender or visitor with appropriate power, supervision, and discipleship administered at every level seems achievable and powerful. i'm not talking "purpose driven church" as much as a group that spends as much time caring internally as externally and runs less like a bank and more like a family. but that's just me.

>If life is just a game, then stewardship is for the losers. ain't that the truth. we will be hated for the Master's sake. they rejected him. they'll reject us. it does seem, however, that there's such a desire for authenticity in the middle of all this cynicism that people will be drawn toward that authenticity. that alexis de toqueville stuff is great! andy and brooke's dad quote from it liberally... i suppose it can be so helpful to see stuff through the perspective of an 'outsider'. so, speaking of stewardship, i got into an actual full blown argument with b that lasted 2 days. unfortunately, it's all been surrounding motorcycles. i want one (not immediately, but sometime) and she thinks it's an irresponsible use of money. i see her point. we're not really that mad at each other (actually, we did have to ask for forgiveness for getting angry when we didn't mean to), but it's more of a conflict over what's worth spending money on. b thinks that as long as it's a "toy" i.e., impractical, then it shouldn't be very expensive. if a bike were $500, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. but $5,000 is a big deal. her point is that more of that money should be spent on others than on myself. she's probably right :^) is this just my own "refined and intelligent selfishness" playing out on a piece of machinery? for me, this is more about the experience of traveling and having the wind in your face than having an expensive image-accessory. but anyway....

"The principles of the republics of antiquity was to sacrifice private interests to the general good. In that sense, one could say taht they were virtuous. The principle of this one [America] seems to be to make private interests harmonize with the general interest. A sort of refined and intelligent selfishness seems to be the pivot on which the whole machine turns. These people here do not trouble themselvse to find out whether public virtue is good, but they do claim to prove that it is useful. If the latter point is true, as I think it is in part, this society can pass as enlightened, but not as virtuous. But up to what extent can the two principles of individual well-being and the general good in fact be merged? How far can a conscience, which one might say was based on reflection and calculation, master those political passions which are not yet born, but which will certainly be born? That is something which only the future will show." ~ Alexis de Toqueville, Journal entry; Sing-Sing, May 29, 1831

so, I was talking to my brother last night. he's in town with his wife before their trip to Ireland. I was telling him about my work and the things we're strategizing for the summer and he said, "Business is all a big game, man. You just have to learn how to play the game well." It sounded strangely reminscent of our conversation about politics with Angie. I thought, man if I were to accept that thought, it would be the beginning of a long summer of cynicism. And then I thought, man our whole generation is cynical! If life is just a game, then stewardship is for the losers.