Well, not technically. I still have to pass boards in a few weeks but I'm finally done with school. And it is anticlimactic, to say the least. I went to our pinning on Thursday where we got our nursing pins in an entirely slipshod, off-the-cuff ceremony that lasted all of 20 minutes. From the big deal the faculty made about the event I was anticipating something much more elaborate. Or that the speakers would have either put together some prepared remarks or actually followed the order of events that was in the program. Silly me.
I am, of course, happy to be done, happy to be moving forward with my career. I recently accepted a position in surgical ICU at well known teaching hospital that comes up with some crazy experimental surgeries. Stuff like intestinal transplants, which is frickin' nuts. The job requires us to move to a new, bigger and cooler city, which is exciting. My folks came out from Iowa to spend the week taking care of my son and packing. We move next Friday and are about 70% done with packing already. Overall, I'm happy, excited and a bit scared.
I'm scared that my new job will be too much for me, that the move will be a mistake, but mostly, I'm scared of not having something to be working for. The last three years have been spent with a single-minded purpose, a very specific goal that required intense focus and lots and lots of hard work. I'll go from working, being in school or clinicals, and spending almost every spare hour studying, writing a paper or preparing a horrifingly long care-plan to just working three days a week. What am I going to do with those other 4 days? And I don't just mean 'how will I fill the time?' I've got a wife and son to spend my days with and tons of reading I've had to put off. But I won't have an immediate goal on which to focus, no overriding priority that gives me some kind of direction. And that kind of freaks me out. For a long time, my life has had a very specific, externally imposed structure. Now I've got to kind of come up with one on my own and I kind of feel like I've forgotten how to do that.
5.18.2008
4.27.2008
Facing the future
With the introduction of my son into my life, I have been thinking more and more about the future. In what kind of world will my son grow up? What themes and events will dominate his life? What will he see as the looming crisis or greatest opportunities of his day? What will his grandchildren ask him to tell stories about and what will mine?
I am one of those that would respond negatively to the pollster's question about the state of affairs my children and grandchildren will inherit. But, of course, that is far too simplistic a question and the answer space far too limited to answer it adequately. I am negative about the future because I see a great many conflicts in the years ahead. If we do run out of oil, or at least demand far outstrips a difficultly obtained supply, then conflict is inevitable. But our world, particularly America, is shaped by oil. We have grown into its energy contours. The physical structure of our nation (and nations) is shaped by it - roads, highways, the location of grocery stores, jobs, all have been determined by our dependence on the car and its dependence on oil. Perhaps the car's need for oil will change. Perhaps a new biofuel or fuel cell or some other new technology will be developed and that will be all well and good. But that, by itself, is no solution. At least not to other problems.
The physical layout of our nation has created separation from each other. Garages mean people can enter and exit their homes with minimal contact with their neighbors. Gross consumer capitalism has rendered public spaces into little more than shopping experiences and there is no place for true, public community. Where can people gather? Where can new ideas be expressed, debated and discussed? Historians have traced how the coffee-houses of Europe and America played vital roles in revolutions and political changes because they offered opportunities for discourse. Does Starbucks, as pleasurable as the coffee and ambience it offers may be, provide that opportunity? No, and not because it is some corporate giant preying on the poor coffee growers of South America (though this may be the case). It is because as a culture we have become far more insular. We expect privacy. We demand it, in fact. We don't tolerate interruptions. And without interruption, without being open to meeting someone or hearing something new, there is no opportunity for growth, for dialogue or change.
I think this disconnection, this desire to be private, to seek our own personal fulfillment and to remain uninvolved with other people is the greatest crisis and opportunity of my day and will greatly impact my son's life. And this is because this culturally manufactured desire is antithetical to true human desire. We desperately want and need to be engaged, to be a part of a community, to grow, to change. Our fulfillment is tied up in the fulfillment of others but our culture does not want us to see that because time spent talking is time spent not-shopping. And its horribly messy. New relationships, new ideas - these are not tidy creatures. They are not as immediately gratifying and comforting as, say, a new ipod or shiny new car. Nor are they as gloriously edifying as making a silent statement to the world's deaf ears about my individuality and unique thoughts and desires. We can only make such statements to other people who are right in front of our face. But we are apparently quite afraid of such proximity.
I am one of those that would respond negatively to the pollster's question about the state of affairs my children and grandchildren will inherit. But, of course, that is far too simplistic a question and the answer space far too limited to answer it adequately. I am negative about the future because I see a great many conflicts in the years ahead. If we do run out of oil, or at least demand far outstrips a difficultly obtained supply, then conflict is inevitable. But our world, particularly America, is shaped by oil. We have grown into its energy contours. The physical structure of our nation (and nations) is shaped by it - roads, highways, the location of grocery stores, jobs, all have been determined by our dependence on the car and its dependence on oil. Perhaps the car's need for oil will change. Perhaps a new biofuel or fuel cell or some other new technology will be developed and that will be all well and good. But that, by itself, is no solution. At least not to other problems.
The physical layout of our nation has created separation from each other. Garages mean people can enter and exit their homes with minimal contact with their neighbors. Gross consumer capitalism has rendered public spaces into little more than shopping experiences and there is no place for true, public community. Where can people gather? Where can new ideas be expressed, debated and discussed? Historians have traced how the coffee-houses of Europe and America played vital roles in revolutions and political changes because they offered opportunities for discourse. Does Starbucks, as pleasurable as the coffee and ambience it offers may be, provide that opportunity? No, and not because it is some corporate giant preying on the poor coffee growers of South America (though this may be the case). It is because as a culture we have become far more insular. We expect privacy. We demand it, in fact. We don't tolerate interruptions. And without interruption, without being open to meeting someone or hearing something new, there is no opportunity for growth, for dialogue or change.
I think this disconnection, this desire to be private, to seek our own personal fulfillment and to remain uninvolved with other people is the greatest crisis and opportunity of my day and will greatly impact my son's life. And this is because this culturally manufactured desire is antithetical to true human desire. We desperately want and need to be engaged, to be a part of a community, to grow, to change. Our fulfillment is tied up in the fulfillment of others but our culture does not want us to see that because time spent talking is time spent not-shopping. And its horribly messy. New relationships, new ideas - these are not tidy creatures. They are not as immediately gratifying and comforting as, say, a new ipod or shiny new car. Nor are they as gloriously edifying as making a silent statement to the world's deaf ears about my individuality and unique thoughts and desires. We can only make such statements to other people who are right in front of our face. But we are apparently quite afraid of such proximity.
3.24.2008
I have a son
As of March 4th, I have been officially inducted into the role of father. My son was born after about 18 hours of active labor, 3 hours 17 minutes of which was exhausting pushing on the part of the wife. We ended up having to get induced since we were overdue (41 weeks) and the baby wasn't moving quite as much as he had been. The labor was long and initially quite painful for her - which is why the man or woman who invented the epidural deserves the Nobel Prize and an annual salary of at least $1 million, as well as a grateful hug from every man on the planet who is able to not sit by in complete uselessness as his wife struggles in agony. I was fortunately able to sit by in complete uselessness while my wife struggled with discomfort and pressure. I tried to help, and God bless her she says I did, but I felt awfully ornamental.
Unfortunately, the little tyke came out with a giant caput succadeneum, a scary rubbery blue and breathing rather poorly. The neonatalogist came down, took one look at him and promptly admitted him to the NICU thinking he might be septic. Blood cultures were drawn, he was given some fluid resuscitation and he was started on an aggressive course of antibiotics. With this, my largely superfluous role during delivery transitioned into a somewhat more utilitarian role since 1) I know what all the means, 2) I know the right questions to ask and 3) the title "doctor" no longer impresses me. I saw him about an hour after delivery and he looked better. The next morning, he looked great. So good, in fact, he didn't even really look like a newborn. The conehead was gone, his color was excellent and he was very active. All the cultures came back negative and the rest of his labs looked good, so he was able to come home after 2.5 days in the NICU.
Now, people say having a baby changes things. They can, and do, describe in horrifying detail the ridiculous roller coaster you are about to jump onto. You listen and smile and nod and think "yeah, this is going to be a big change" which is akin to comparing the Grand Canyon with a big hole in the ground. Just like the Grand Canyon, having a baby is marvelous and deep, but looking down into that sheer abyss right in front of you is also terrifying and you cannot help but ask yourself half a dozen times an hour "what did we just do?!" This became especially acute when the true definition of colic finally came home to me. For those who do not yet have children, you will learn to fear this word as I do. And mine is just a "little colicky". But at the times he is not crying or sleeping, he is incredibly alert and attentive. His hands are always exploring and his face moves through a dizzying array of expressions. I have been told by those more experienced with children than I that this means he is intelligent. Right now, it makes him incredibly cute and gives him personality.
He is a unique, little creation, an image-bearer, a person, a self. He will turn into someone very different from me and I get to be in on the direction he takes. I get to be in on his discovery of the world and himself. And I get to be in on the discoveries going on in me that only he could reveal. For instance, one night when he was tenaciously clinging to wakefulness, I spent about an hour walking him up and down the hall so he wouldn't cry and the wife could get some much needed sleep. I too, was tired and growing frustrated that every time I stopped he would begin to wail. As my frustration and fatigue were reaching a peak, I had a revelation about my own behavior. How many times has God walked me back and forth after my own repeated failures? How frustrating my obstinence, how grating my cries? And yet all I receive from Him is love and mercy. I saw my son in a new light at that moment and the nature of our relationship changed. What awesome responsibility and what a privilege of delights is fatherhood.
Unfortunately, the little tyke came out with a giant caput succadeneum, a scary rubbery blue and breathing rather poorly. The neonatalogist came down, took one look at him and promptly admitted him to the NICU thinking he might be septic. Blood cultures were drawn, he was given some fluid resuscitation and he was started on an aggressive course of antibiotics. With this, my largely superfluous role during delivery transitioned into a somewhat more utilitarian role since 1) I know what all the means, 2) I know the right questions to ask and 3) the title "doctor" no longer impresses me. I saw him about an hour after delivery and he looked better. The next morning, he looked great. So good, in fact, he didn't even really look like a newborn. The conehead was gone, his color was excellent and he was very active. All the cultures came back negative and the rest of his labs looked good, so he was able to come home after 2.5 days in the NICU.
Now, people say having a baby changes things. They can, and do, describe in horrifying detail the ridiculous roller coaster you are about to jump onto. You listen and smile and nod and think "yeah, this is going to be a big change" which is akin to comparing the Grand Canyon with a big hole in the ground. Just like the Grand Canyon, having a baby is marvelous and deep, but looking down into that sheer abyss right in front of you is also terrifying and you cannot help but ask yourself half a dozen times an hour "what did we just do?!" This became especially acute when the true definition of colic finally came home to me. For those who do not yet have children, you will learn to fear this word as I do. And mine is just a "little colicky". But at the times he is not crying or sleeping, he is incredibly alert and attentive. His hands are always exploring and his face moves through a dizzying array of expressions. I have been told by those more experienced with children than I that this means he is intelligent. Right now, it makes him incredibly cute and gives him personality.
He is a unique, little creation, an image-bearer, a person, a self. He will turn into someone very different from me and I get to be in on the direction he takes. I get to be in on his discovery of the world and himself. And I get to be in on the discoveries going on in me that only he could reveal. For instance, one night when he was tenaciously clinging to wakefulness, I spent about an hour walking him up and down the hall so he wouldn't cry and the wife could get some much needed sleep. I too, was tired and growing frustrated that every time I stopped he would begin to wail. As my frustration and fatigue were reaching a peak, I had a revelation about my own behavior. How many times has God walked me back and forth after my own repeated failures? How frustrating my obstinence, how grating my cries? And yet all I receive from Him is love and mercy. I saw my son in a new light at that moment and the nature of our relationship changed. What awesome responsibility and what a privilege of delights is fatherhood.
2.25.2008
Xenophilia - I
[This post, and subsequent posts in this series, deals with something I have been mulling over for a while now. It is partially due to the prominence of immigration and immigration reform in the presidential primaries and partly due to my reading and rereading of Ezekiel over the last few months, which has a lot to say about God's attitude towards foreigners and aliens. That is also to say, Ezekiel has a lot to say about what our attitude as Christians should be towards foreigners and aliens.]
Deuteronomy 26:1-10
Whatever the Hebrew people were or however they started, their identity was forged in Egypt. It was from Egypt they were rescued and it was during that deliverance that God set them apart and called them His own. During their flight, the Law was given, their relationship to God was defined through the covenant and God revealed more of Himself than He ever had in the past. The Hebrew people are a delivered people. They are a rescued people. They were homeless and oppressed until God stepped in.
That by itself, both humbling and revelatory, does not tell us very much about God. The simple fact that He rescued a specific nation or ethnic group, gave them some land and established a relationship with them does not inherently tell us who God is. In human terms, a king will gladly intervene to save his own people. A father does not hesitate to help his children. But God reveals much, much more of Himself. From the very beginning of His relationship with the Hebrew people, God informs us that He has a very different take on things.
These are two short verses, but they say so much. First, God does not want His chosen people to act like other people. They were oppressed in Egypt, other nations oppress foreigners in their midst, but the Hebrews are to treat the alien as they would another Hebrew. In Exodus 12, as the Hebrews prepare for the Passover, the Hebrews are explicitly told to allow aliens among them to participate so long as the household is circumcised. Presumably, these Exodus 12 aliens were other enslaved peoples, but it may have also have referred to Egyptians. God is not vindictive and is not interested in setting up another system like the one from which He will deliver the Hebrews. The Hebrews are to act differently.
These verses also imply a kind of parallel relationship between God and the Hebrews, and the Hebrews and aliens. God extended His kindness and mercy to the Hebrews, they should extend it to the aliens. God desires that the world should see the behavior of the Jews towards foreigners, and, knowing that the Jews were themselves saved from an oppressive foreign power, understand that the Lord extends the same salvific embrace to them as well. God has helped the Hebrews. The Hebrews help us. God will help us. The way the Jews are to treat the foreigner, the alien, the oppressed and powerless, is meant to speak to those people in a way words could never express. It is an invitation-in-action to relationship with God, who is just and merciful.
This point is underscored by Exodus 22:22-15. Do not take advantage of the widow, the orphan or the poor. If you are in a position of power you must deal justly with them because God is compassionate! It was compassion that was displayed to the powerless Hebrews in bringing them out of Egypt and it is compassion that they are to show to the powerless. They must enact God's compassion as a message both to each other and to outsiders. There is no boundary, no us and them. And it is precisely Israel's failure to do this that so inflames the prophets.
(cont.)
Deuteronomy 26:1-10
When you have entered the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance and have taken possession of it and settled in it, take some of the firstfruits of all that you produce from the soil of the land the LORD your God is giving you and put them in a basket. Then go to the place the LORD your God will choose as a dwelling for his Name and say to the priest in office at the time, "I declare today to the LORD your God that I have come to the land the LORD swore to our forefathers to give us." The priest shall take the basket from your hands and set it down in front of the altar of the LORD your God. Then you shall declare before the LORD your God: "My father was a wandering Aramean, and he went down into Egypt with a few people and lived there and became a great nation, powerful and numerous. But the Egyptians mistreated us and made us suffer, putting us to hard labor. Then we cried out to the LORD, the God of our fathers, and the LORD heard our voice and saw our misery, toil and oppression. So the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with great terror and with miraculous signs and wonders. He brought us to this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey; and now I bring the firstfruits of the soil that you, O LORD, have given me."
"My father was a wandering Aramean..." Or, "My father was a lost Aramean..." Or, "My father was a perishing Aramean...." When we have come into the land that the Lord had given us, we are to say to the Lord, "My father, our father, was lost, wandering, dying in the desert. He was a stranger, homeless, without shelter. Until you gave him and me a home. Until you saved us. Until you gave us a place to live, land to grow food, water, livestock. Until you pulled us from our despair and fear and loneliness and gave us a place to worship you. We were aliens. You made us citizens. You made us at home."Whatever the Hebrew people were or however they started, their identity was forged in Egypt. It was from Egypt they were rescued and it was during that deliverance that God set them apart and called them His own. During their flight, the Law was given, their relationship to God was defined through the covenant and God revealed more of Himself than He ever had in the past. The Hebrew people are a delivered people. They are a rescued people. They were homeless and oppressed until God stepped in.
That by itself, both humbling and revelatory, does not tell us very much about God. The simple fact that He rescued a specific nation or ethnic group, gave them some land and established a relationship with them does not inherently tell us who God is. In human terms, a king will gladly intervene to save his own people. A father does not hesitate to help his children. But God reveals much, much more of Himself. From the very beginning of His relationship with the Hebrew people, God informs us that He has a very different take on things.
Exodus 22:21 "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt."
Exodus 23:9 "Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt.These are two short verses, but they say so much. First, God does not want His chosen people to act like other people. They were oppressed in Egypt, other nations oppress foreigners in their midst, but the Hebrews are to treat the alien as they would another Hebrew. In Exodus 12, as the Hebrews prepare for the Passover, the Hebrews are explicitly told to allow aliens among them to participate so long as the household is circumcised. Presumably, these Exodus 12 aliens were other enslaved peoples, but it may have also have referred to Egyptians. God is not vindictive and is not interested in setting up another system like the one from which He will deliver the Hebrews. The Hebrews are to act differently.
These verses also imply a kind of parallel relationship between God and the Hebrews, and the Hebrews and aliens. God extended His kindness and mercy to the Hebrews, they should extend it to the aliens. God desires that the world should see the behavior of the Jews towards foreigners, and, knowing that the Jews were themselves saved from an oppressive foreign power, understand that the Lord extends the same salvific embrace to them as well. God has helped the Hebrews. The Hebrews help us. God will help us. The way the Jews are to treat the foreigner, the alien, the oppressed and powerless, is meant to speak to those people in a way words could never express. It is an invitation-in-action to relationship with God, who is just and merciful.
This point is underscored by Exodus 22:22-15. Do not take advantage of the widow, the orphan or the poor. If you are in a position of power you must deal justly with them because God is compassionate! It was compassion that was displayed to the powerless Hebrews in bringing them out of Egypt and it is compassion that they are to show to the powerless. They must enact God's compassion as a message both to each other and to outsiders. There is no boundary, no us and them. And it is precisely Israel's failure to do this that so inflames the prophets.
(cont.)
2.06.2008
When is it ok to vote for my own identity?
In the run-up to Super Duper Tuesday (as much fun as that was, moreso now that not a whole lot was actually clarified by it), I listened to a fair amount of political commentary on the radio and on TV. In fact, one of my new favorite shows is Morning Joe on MSNBC. Most mornings I sit on the couch quietly slurping my cereal and watch CNN or Headline News. A few weeks back, I turned on Morning Joe and have been hooked ever since. I imagine the luster will fade once the elections are over. Most commentators have been making a big issue over voter identity in this race. When Obama was the underdog, most commentators believed blacks would support Clinton believing that Obama's race was not enough to turn the tide in his favor in that group. Women were expected, and apparently generally are, supporting Clinton, presumably because they're women. Evangelicals support Huckabee because he used to be a Southern Baptist preacher and is still a conservative Christian. And Romney carried 83% of Utah's Republicans. The Mormon majority state voted for the Mormon candidate, which is unsurprising.
But in the weeks prior to yesterday, there was a great deal of snotty condemnation of the fact that a good percentage of the Christians in the US won't vote for Romney because they are suspicious of his Mormon faith. Mormons can vote for Mormons, women for women, blacks for blacks - that kind of identity politics is fine, but when it reverses itself, somehow that is unacceptable? Why is a woman voting for a woman solely because she's a woman less sexist than a man who won't vote for a woman because she's a woman? Why is it racist for a white person to refuse to support a black candidate but not racist for a black person to refuse to support anyone but a black candidate? Why is the positive accepted but the negative condemned when they are just two sides of the same coin?
To me, this points to another failure in our political process. People do not tend to vote with a rational understanding and weighing of the issues. They do not closely examine their own values and then pick a candidate who most closely agrees with them or who will support what matters most to them. They vote with their gut. They vote with social pressure. And all too often that makes for very poor politics.
But in the weeks prior to yesterday, there was a great deal of snotty condemnation of the fact that a good percentage of the Christians in the US won't vote for Romney because they are suspicious of his Mormon faith. Mormons can vote for Mormons, women for women, blacks for blacks - that kind of identity politics is fine, but when it reverses itself, somehow that is unacceptable? Why is a woman voting for a woman solely because she's a woman less sexist than a man who won't vote for a woman because she's a woman? Why is it racist for a white person to refuse to support a black candidate but not racist for a black person to refuse to support anyone but a black candidate? Why is the positive accepted but the negative condemned when they are just two sides of the same coin?
To me, this points to another failure in our political process. People do not tend to vote with a rational understanding and weighing of the issues. They do not closely examine their own values and then pick a candidate who most closely agrees with them or who will support what matters most to them. They vote with their gut. They vote with social pressure. And all too often that makes for very poor politics.
1.28.2008
Child-Men
Or "My Xbox Broke A Month Ago and I Haven't Missed It At All".
I was listening to Talk of the Nation on NPR on Monday afternoon and caught the end of an interview with Kay Hymowitz on an article she wrote recently for the City Journal, which was also adapted as an editorial for the Dallas Morning News. According to Hymowitz, young men in their 20's are experiencing an unprecedented wave of freedom that they are exercising by playing video games, seeking meaningless sexual gratification and otherwise acting like adolescents. Hence her term "child-men". The articles make a strong case for her point that today's young men are being socialized to be boys fixated on entertainment and self-centered pursuits. Marriage, now coming later than ever for men and women, has lost its civilizing and maturational influence on this generation. Instead of raising children, many young men are instead spending countless hours playing games, both with women and video games. If you only have time for a quick read, go with the Dallas News editorial. For the full article, check out the City Journal page. I have points of disagreement with her, but that is not what caught my attention on the radio.
What caught my attention is the simple fact that I, too, play video games. Or at least I did. See, about 4 weeks ago my Xbox360 took a dive. Many thousands of Xbox360 owners have had trouble with a manufacturing defect that produces the dreaded "Red Rings of Death" (the term is a take-off on the Window's classic "Blue Screen of Death" which appeared whenever your computer crashed). Basically, the lights around the power button turn red and this means your Xbox360 is dead. Microsoft extended the warranty for three years for every Xbox for this and is providing free repairs. My Xbox did not suffer RROD. Rather, the video card apparently died. Which means the system boots up and logs in, which I can tell from the sound effects, but there is no video output. Just a blank screen with some swimming dots. Obviously, this makes actually playing a video game rather difficult.
I was initially quite upset since I was in the middle of some campaigns on different games. That's kind of like having to leave a theater half way through a movie you were enjoying. I didn't like wasting money on the games that I could now not finish. And I especially didn't want to waste $100 on fixing the stupid thing for what is obviously a defect but would not be covered because my warranty is expired. But I forgot about it after a couple of days. School started, we finished up getting things ready for the baby (now just under 4 weeks off if he comes on time), I started reading more, poking around online and engaging in some discussions, talking to friends and family more often on the phone and generally just enjoying life. Until I heard Kay Hymowitz on Talk of the Nation talking about Child-Men. And I realized that, to a certain extent, I am one. Or maybe I was one. I wasted a lot of time playing on that stupid thing. Time that could have been much better spent talking to my wife, studying, praying, exercising, helping other people, writing - any of a hundred different things that had casually and thoughtlessly gotten sucked up by a white box sitting next to my TV. Hearing her talk about these guys, and hearing something of myself brought up in the article, made me realized that I not only didn't miss my Xbox, I'm glad its gone.
I realize there are probably some readers out there who have no idea what a change this is for me. For a very long time, video games were my outlet. Over the last 2.5 years especially, with school as busy and stressful as its been, getting lost in a game was one of my primary stress-relievers. And now I see just how dependent I was on that mind-numbing experience and I'm seeing how so much of popular culture is similarly stupifying. We waste so much time, energy and pieces of ourselves in pursuit of...nothing. It brings to mind my high school Latin teacher when he taught us the meaning of nihil - "less than straw". The Latin mind could conceive of nothing as insignificant as a piece of hay. And that is exactly what today's culture wants us to do; we seek insignificance.
I was listening to Talk of the Nation on NPR on Monday afternoon and caught the end of an interview with Kay Hymowitz on an article she wrote recently for the City Journal, which was also adapted as an editorial for the Dallas Morning News. According to Hymowitz, young men in their 20's are experiencing an unprecedented wave of freedom that they are exercising by playing video games, seeking meaningless sexual gratification and otherwise acting like adolescents. Hence her term "child-men". The articles make a strong case for her point that today's young men are being socialized to be boys fixated on entertainment and self-centered pursuits. Marriage, now coming later than ever for men and women, has lost its civilizing and maturational influence on this generation. Instead of raising children, many young men are instead spending countless hours playing games, both with women and video games. If you only have time for a quick read, go with the Dallas News editorial. For the full article, check out the City Journal page. I have points of disagreement with her, but that is not what caught my attention on the radio.
What caught my attention is the simple fact that I, too, play video games. Or at least I did. See, about 4 weeks ago my Xbox360 took a dive. Many thousands of Xbox360 owners have had trouble with a manufacturing defect that produces the dreaded "Red Rings of Death" (the term is a take-off on the Window's classic "Blue Screen of Death" which appeared whenever your computer crashed). Basically, the lights around the power button turn red and this means your Xbox360 is dead. Microsoft extended the warranty for three years for every Xbox for this and is providing free repairs. My Xbox did not suffer RROD. Rather, the video card apparently died. Which means the system boots up and logs in, which I can tell from the sound effects, but there is no video output. Just a blank screen with some swimming dots. Obviously, this makes actually playing a video game rather difficult.
I was initially quite upset since I was in the middle of some campaigns on different games. That's kind of like having to leave a theater half way through a movie you were enjoying. I didn't like wasting money on the games that I could now not finish. And I especially didn't want to waste $100 on fixing the stupid thing for what is obviously a defect but would not be covered because my warranty is expired. But I forgot about it after a couple of days. School started, we finished up getting things ready for the baby (now just under 4 weeks off if he comes on time), I started reading more, poking around online and engaging in some discussions, talking to friends and family more often on the phone and generally just enjoying life. Until I heard Kay Hymowitz on Talk of the Nation talking about Child-Men. And I realized that, to a certain extent, I am one. Or maybe I was one. I wasted a lot of time playing on that stupid thing. Time that could have been much better spent talking to my wife, studying, praying, exercising, helping other people, writing - any of a hundred different things that had casually and thoughtlessly gotten sucked up by a white box sitting next to my TV. Hearing her talk about these guys, and hearing something of myself brought up in the article, made me realized that I not only didn't miss my Xbox, I'm glad its gone.
I realize there are probably some readers out there who have no idea what a change this is for me. For a very long time, video games were my outlet. Over the last 2.5 years especially, with school as busy and stressful as its been, getting lost in a game was one of my primary stress-relievers. And now I see just how dependent I was on that mind-numbing experience and I'm seeing how so much of popular culture is similarly stupifying. We waste so much time, energy and pieces of ourselves in pursuit of...nothing. It brings to mind my high school Latin teacher when he taught us the meaning of nihil - "less than straw". The Latin mind could conceive of nothing as insignificant as a piece of hay. And that is exactly what today's culture wants us to do; we seek insignificance.
1.21.2008
Dating Jesus
Saturday morning, the wife and I went to a local coffee shop to study. Me for nursing school and her for a licensure exam at work. Towards the end of our study session a group of maybe 10 people pulled a few tables together right next to us. There were a few young women among the group and the rest were men of varying ages. They opened with prayer, always a welcome development when a large group gathers near your study area, and proceeded with their meeting. I had assumed it was a Bible study, but it turns it out was a group of ministry leaders from various college ministry organizations (Campus Crusade, Intervarsity and the like) and representatives of a few local churches with college ministries. They were coordinating ministry and outreach events for the coming semester. Frankly, I was delighted to see that kind of cooperation and cohesion among these obviously competing groups. Youth and college ministries can be especially numbers-driven due to the need for a "critical mass" of students in order to be attractive to outsiders. Kids generally don't like hanging around a fun-filled group of 5 when 2 of them are leaders. So for them to pool resources and forgo competitive ministry programs is, well, very Christian.
I didn't follow too much of the beginning of their meeting. I was engrossed in my "Caring for the Complex Family" text and they were talking about doing a few of the same things they had done last year. But as my interest in the Complex Family waned (directly proportional to the temperature and remaining volume of my coffee, I might add), they started tossing out new ideas. My attention was soon diverted to eavesdropping.
They had a variety of ideas. Most seemed generically conventional for Campus Crusade, based on my experience with the organization at Arizona State. Big, fun, invite-your-friend kind of things with a recognizable speaker or good band. Events with lots of energy and skits. Some of the ideas seemed more suited for a younger crowd but I assumed they knew their audience better than I. The one idea that really caught my attention, though, was presented by a college-aged female. Rough sketch: a skit based on the dating game wherein one of the bachelor's is Jesus, or answers exactly as Jesus would, and at the end of the game the young woman picks him. Excuse me, Him. They kind of tossed it around a bit - maybe the young woman is someone from the crowd, or maybe they just focus on the kind of love we all allegedly want, or all of the bachelors portray some aspect of Jesus. Or maybe they actually set up some kind of contest where someone actually wins a fantasy date, either as a package they can take their significant other on or they actually take the guy or girl from the skit. It went around for several minutes.
My initial reaction was "As a guy, I sure wouldn't want to date Jesus." You know, liking women like I do. So it seemed their strategy was going to alienate at least half of the crowd right then. Other thoughts ran through my head - what if what these college kids want from "love" isn't what God actually offers? How do you choose who gets to be the bachelors and how do you avoid using sexual attraction as an evangelism tool? And why do these oddly perverse notions of the romantic Jesus stay alive? Then an older gentleman said he kind of doubted they could actually know how Jesus would answer dating questions. Another pointed out the obvious difficulty if the person from the crowd chose a non-Jesus bachelor. Other flaws in the plan slowly became apparent but, overall, they seemed to like the general idea and thought maybe a good speaker could adapt what was happening to an evangelistic talk and no matter what happened, use it somehow.
I kept thinking is this what evangelism has come to? Dating Jesus?
As we left, they were on to other ideas and I interrupted the group to proffer a couple of suggestions. But I was still disquieted by the shallowness of their ideas about evangelism. Big-time fun does not equal conversion and on the rare occasion that it does, how much spiritual depth does that person actually experience? How does feeding the obviously jacked-up cultural norms of dating help bring anyone to relationship with Christ? What are they thinking?!
But (and this is a big, big but) then I realized something. They're actually doing it. No matter how shallow or ineffective their ideas seemed to me, they were at least committed to doing it. They were willing to take the time and energy to prepare and plan, to generate ideas and to figure out ways to put them into action. And they were willing to put themselves out on that very uncomfortable limb and plainly deliver the Gospel, no matter the context. And frankly, I'm not. I haven't shared the Gospel with anyone in the last 2 1/2 years. I fully believe that drive-by evangelism is ineffective and irresponsible, but at some point relational evangelism has to transition into actual evangelism. So far, I'm pretty good on the relational part. I think its time to work on the evangelism part.
So here's to that group. God bless them and the work that they do. God bless their endeavors and may they, and You, forgive my arrogance. God grant me their heart for reaching out to the lost. And maybe grant us all some better ideas.
Unless, that is, You like The Dating Game.
I didn't follow too much of the beginning of their meeting. I was engrossed in my "Caring for the Complex Family" text and they were talking about doing a few of the same things they had done last year. But as my interest in the Complex Family waned (directly proportional to the temperature and remaining volume of my coffee, I might add), they started tossing out new ideas. My attention was soon diverted to eavesdropping.
They had a variety of ideas. Most seemed generically conventional for Campus Crusade, based on my experience with the organization at Arizona State. Big, fun, invite-your-friend kind of things with a recognizable speaker or good band. Events with lots of energy and skits. Some of the ideas seemed more suited for a younger crowd but I assumed they knew their audience better than I. The one idea that really caught my attention, though, was presented by a college-aged female. Rough sketch: a skit based on the dating game wherein one of the bachelor's is Jesus, or answers exactly as Jesus would, and at the end of the game the young woman picks him. Excuse me, Him. They kind of tossed it around a bit - maybe the young woman is someone from the crowd, or maybe they just focus on the kind of love we all allegedly want, or all of the bachelors portray some aspect of Jesus. Or maybe they actually set up some kind of contest where someone actually wins a fantasy date, either as a package they can take their significant other on or they actually take the guy or girl from the skit. It went around for several minutes.
My initial reaction was "As a guy, I sure wouldn't want to date Jesus." You know, liking women like I do. So it seemed their strategy was going to alienate at least half of the crowd right then. Other thoughts ran through my head - what if what these college kids want from "love" isn't what God actually offers? How do you choose who gets to be the bachelors and how do you avoid using sexual attraction as an evangelism tool? And why do these oddly perverse notions of the romantic Jesus stay alive? Then an older gentleman said he kind of doubted they could actually know how Jesus would answer dating questions. Another pointed out the obvious difficulty if the person from the crowd chose a non-Jesus bachelor. Other flaws in the plan slowly became apparent but, overall, they seemed to like the general idea and thought maybe a good speaker could adapt what was happening to an evangelistic talk and no matter what happened, use it somehow.
I kept thinking is this what evangelism has come to? Dating Jesus?
As we left, they were on to other ideas and I interrupted the group to proffer a couple of suggestions. But I was still disquieted by the shallowness of their ideas about evangelism. Big-time fun does not equal conversion and on the rare occasion that it does, how much spiritual depth does that person actually experience? How does feeding the obviously jacked-up cultural norms of dating help bring anyone to relationship with Christ? What are they thinking?!
But (and this is a big, big but) then I realized something. They're actually doing it. No matter how shallow or ineffective their ideas seemed to me, they were at least committed to doing it. They were willing to take the time and energy to prepare and plan, to generate ideas and to figure out ways to put them into action. And they were willing to put themselves out on that very uncomfortable limb and plainly deliver the Gospel, no matter the context. And frankly, I'm not. I haven't shared the Gospel with anyone in the last 2 1/2 years. I fully believe that drive-by evangelism is ineffective and irresponsible, but at some point relational evangelism has to transition into actual evangelism. So far, I'm pretty good on the relational part. I think its time to work on the evangelism part.
So here's to that group. God bless them and the work that they do. God bless their endeavors and may they, and You, forgive my arrogance. God grant me their heart for reaching out to the lost. And maybe grant us all some better ideas.
Unless, that is, You like The Dating Game.
1.13.2008
What I Learned in Nursing School (in progress)
I've been thinking about doing this post for a while, kind of a "top ten" list of what I've learned. But I'm not sure I've got 10 things to post and school is still a work in progress, so I'm treating the list the same way. Here is my unfinished, in-progress list of the top things I learned in nursing school.
The best physicians generally aren't good doctors. This of course isn't a hard and fast rule. There are some doctors that I work with who are expert surgeons or diagnosticians and who are also very caring and compassionate human beings. But they are the exception. By and large, the doctors who are the best at what they do plainly stink at how they do it. Family needs or questions are ignored or demeaned and patient needs, insofar as they don't correspond to the doctor's specialty, are treated as secondary when acknowledged at all. For that reason, even if they are the best in the operating room or during a code, they aren't the people I'd want taking care of me. If my prognosis is poor, I'd rather have someone treat me and my family with dignity and respect instead of having a doctor that might give me a few more days of life while treating us like inconveniences.
It is amazing what you can adapt to. When I was young, cleaning up after the dog would send me to the bathroom fighting a fit of gagging and dry heaves. The mere scent of vomit would set me off and the actual sight of puke was almost more than I could take. Rotting garbage, a dead animal, moldy food - the odors were just too much. But now, oh boy, now you could be shooting out of both ends and it wouldn't faze me excepting the knowledge that I'll be the one to clean it up. Also, the...uh...texture and aroma of certain bodily functions can be diagnostic. So I'm definitely over my weak stomach and at odd times find myself sniffing gently in the hospital hall trying to figure out who's got the C. diff and who is just gassy.
If someone says they're going to throw up, its best to take them at their word. And to get out of the way.
Hospitals really do smell funny. I noticed it the very first day I started working in one but forgot all about it until I went in to one to visit someone. Once I was out of my scrubs and just a guy off the street, that smell hit me full force again even though I'm in a hospital 3-4 days a week. That reminded me how bewildering and intimidating the hospital can be for people who aren't used to it.
What we can do to you far exceeds what we can do for you. And the reason, more often than not, that we are doing all of these things to you is because of your family. They can't let you go even though there is no hope for recovery and keeping you alive is only prolonging your suffering. Why? Guilt and fear. Guilt about what is left unsaid or undone, about past wrongs not made right and deep-seated fear about all of our fates. It is generally the conflicted, wounded families that experience so much ambivalence and confusion in the face tragedy. So please, right after you're done reading this, go apologize to those you've hurt and forgive those who have hurt you. Reassure them of your love and forgiveness and remind them about God's. It just may save all of you untold suffering and emotional pain at some unfortunate point in the future. More importantly, it will change that relationship for the rest of your respective lives. And tell at least a few of them in explicit detail exactly what you do and do not want done should you end up laying in an ICU with machines keeping you alive. Maybe, just for fun, put it in writing.
(cont.)
The best physicians generally aren't good doctors. This of course isn't a hard and fast rule. There are some doctors that I work with who are expert surgeons or diagnosticians and who are also very caring and compassionate human beings. But they are the exception. By and large, the doctors who are the best at what they do plainly stink at how they do it. Family needs or questions are ignored or demeaned and patient needs, insofar as they don't correspond to the doctor's specialty, are treated as secondary when acknowledged at all. For that reason, even if they are the best in the operating room or during a code, they aren't the people I'd want taking care of me. If my prognosis is poor, I'd rather have someone treat me and my family with dignity and respect instead of having a doctor that might give me a few more days of life while treating us like inconveniences.
It is amazing what you can adapt to. When I was young, cleaning up after the dog would send me to the bathroom fighting a fit of gagging and dry heaves. The mere scent of vomit would set me off and the actual sight of puke was almost more than I could take. Rotting garbage, a dead animal, moldy food - the odors were just too much. But now, oh boy, now you could be shooting out of both ends and it wouldn't faze me excepting the knowledge that I'll be the one to clean it up. Also, the...uh...texture and aroma of certain bodily functions can be diagnostic. So I'm definitely over my weak stomach and at odd times find myself sniffing gently in the hospital hall trying to figure out who's got the C. diff and who is just gassy.
If someone says they're going to throw up, its best to take them at their word. And to get out of the way.
Hospitals really do smell funny. I noticed it the very first day I started working in one but forgot all about it until I went in to one to visit someone. Once I was out of my scrubs and just a guy off the street, that smell hit me full force again even though I'm in a hospital 3-4 days a week. That reminded me how bewildering and intimidating the hospital can be for people who aren't used to it.
What we can do to you far exceeds what we can do for you. And the reason, more often than not, that we are doing all of these things to you is because of your family. They can't let you go even though there is no hope for recovery and keeping you alive is only prolonging your suffering. Why? Guilt and fear. Guilt about what is left unsaid or undone, about past wrongs not made right and deep-seated fear about all of our fates. It is generally the conflicted, wounded families that experience so much ambivalence and confusion in the face tragedy. So please, right after you're done reading this, go apologize to those you've hurt and forgive those who have hurt you. Reassure them of your love and forgiveness and remind them about God's. It just may save all of you untold suffering and emotional pain at some unfortunate point in the future. More importantly, it will change that relationship for the rest of your respective lives. And tell at least a few of them in explicit detail exactly what you do and do not want done should you end up laying in an ICU with machines keeping you alive. Maybe, just for fun, put it in writing.
(cont.)
School starts...
...tomorrow. My final semester in the nursing program, thankfully. I'll graduate in May, take boards in early June and then finally get a job and have something resembling free time again. The other day someone asked me if I was excited for the semester to start. I told them I'm excited for the semester to end. This has been a three year journey that I had never anticipated or even contemplated. After getting thrown a curveball by being fired as a youth pastor and still having huge and unanswered (at that point) questions about "what is church?", the wife and I ended up in Indiana and my starting to pursue a career as a nurse. Its not exactly my passion, but it will pay the bills, provide a great deal of freedom and mobility to pursue my passions outside of work, all the while offering untold opportunities to help people in very significant ways. All told, not a bad compromise.
This next semester is maternity and pediatric nursing. I've got zip experience with either one, with the exception of having taken care of a few kids with bad colds in the ER over the last few months, so I'm looking forward to getting into a different area. And with my own little one due in about 6 1/2 weeks, I should learn some valuable skills in taking care of him and helping the wife through labor and delivery. I've also been told by my classmates who took this section last semester (and who are now due to be taking the black hole of critical care and psychiatric nursing that I was taking) that the teacher is good and the class not overly demanding. Again, a lovely compromise that I am grateful for. Another bonus - I only have one day of clinicals, instead of 2 like most semesters, so when the wife finally pops I'll be able to miss a week without it impacting my grade (missing 2 or more days knocks 3% off your final grade for each day missed). So I'm looking forward to school starting, not least for it being my last semester. It promises to be a very engaging 16 weeks, personally, educationally and professionally.
This next semester is maternity and pediatric nursing. I've got zip experience with either one, with the exception of having taken care of a few kids with bad colds in the ER over the last few months, so I'm looking forward to getting into a different area. And with my own little one due in about 6 1/2 weeks, I should learn some valuable skills in taking care of him and helping the wife through labor and delivery. I've also been told by my classmates who took this section last semester (and who are now due to be taking the black hole of critical care and psychiatric nursing that I was taking) that the teacher is good and the class not overly demanding. Again, a lovely compromise that I am grateful for. Another bonus - I only have one day of clinicals, instead of 2 like most semesters, so when the wife finally pops I'll be able to miss a week without it impacting my grade (missing 2 or more days knocks 3% off your final grade for each day missed). So I'm looking forward to school starting, not least for it being my last semester. It promises to be a very engaging 16 weeks, personally, educationally and professionally.
1.09.2008
The Presumption of Malice
Given the obviously partisan nature of politics in this country, which seems to have only worsened over the last several years with acrimonious debates about the war in particular, it is no surprise that people at one pole tend to take a negative view of the people at the other. Many a lefty takes a dim view of a righty's stance on the war, social programs, abortion, the economy and a host of other issues and vehemently vice versa. For the most part, though (I hope), this negativism is not personal. I think pro-abortionists are wrong but I don't think they are for "reproductive choice" because they find it quite a lot of fun to kill unborn children. I think the pro-Iraq war folks were and are wrong, but I don't think they find it quite a lot of fun to kill brown people or destroy other countries. The list goes on and for a large majority of Americans, I think we tend to look at those we disagree with in a generally neutral light. But there is an increasingly strident minority that does not. For these people, there is an inexplicable presumption of malice.
I think that presumption operates on a principle inversely similar to Occam's Razor - the reason that is most morally objectionable is the true reason someone supports this cause. This methodology seems to be gaining traction in both parties. I'm not talking about the generally negative speech that emanates from both party bases. Its no surprise that Rush Limbaugh or other conservative pundits credit most Democrats/liberals with stupidity, or that left-wing commentators accuse Republicans/conservatives of greed. No, this moves even further afield than that. In general, I don't count comments directed against particular politicians because I don't put political pandering and manipulation beyond just about anyone seeking national office anymore. Maybe I'm a bit cynical but I think the very nature of the political process in this country has become schizophrenic. We demand a degree of perfection and consistency from candidates that is impossible. There are certain ritualistic performances and statements that candidates have to comply with in order to be politically viable. Take the near worshipful view that all of the candidates have towards 'the troops.' I have no doubt that there is a degree of respect for the military in all of the candidates but not every single solider, sailor, airman or marine is a paragon of virtue. Not every combat action taken by an American has been honorable. Not every soldier is fighting for our freedom. Not every one in the military wants to be making the sacrifices they are making. And yet you wouldn't know it from the candidates' statements because you wouldn't know them as candidates if they didn't make them. Because a candidate changing their message or their views in response to polls or focus groups is no surprise, I personally don't think calling the kettle black is unacceptable. Rude, distasteful and occasionally over the top yes, but not altogether out of the question. Accusations of perfidy are par for the course precisely because of the corrupting nature of American politics.
Of late, however, I have heard comments that presume malice on the part of entire swaths of the American public. The two examples that stick out in my mind were made by those on the left but I know that there are just as many voices on the right echoing the sentiment. The first one that springs to mind was heard last week. A woman made the blanket assertion that we pro-lifers don't really care about the unborn child, rather, we're against abortion because it is a way to control women. By opposing abortion we, primarily, undermine the economic freedom of women who would be forced, in an abortion-free society, to forgo education and job opportunities to gestate and presumably raise their unwanted children. Opposition to abortion is then apparently a way we sexist misogynists can make up for, I dunno, women getting the right to vote or something. The second comment was heard just this morning. Two African-American female commentators were discussing the results of the New Hampshire primaries and suggested that a large number of conservative independents may have switched over to vote for Sen. Obama because they think "a black man can't win the popular vote." Helping him to get the nomination would then ensure a Republican victory by racist conservatives.
Personally, I find this kind of political speech disconcerting and reprehensible. And, most importantly, un-Christian. No matter how strongly we feel about an issue, no matter how staunchly we disagree with someone else, I don't think that we, as Christians, can ever presume malicious intent. If a pro-lifer came out and said "I oppose abortion to keep women down" or "I voted for Obama in the primaries because this country won't elect no n******", then these people have identified their own malice and revealed the ugly depths of their own hearts. But we as Christians have to do better than that. We are called upon to love our neighbor and, at the very least, we have to love them with the language we use to describe them. I think we have to give everyone the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise. Which is why, from here through the election, and probably beyond, I'm not going to sit back and let other Christians speak in this manner. If I hear or read a presumption of malice I'm going to call them on it. I'm going to call them to the higher standard we all know we are obliged to live up to. Who's with me?
I think that presumption operates on a principle inversely similar to Occam's Razor - the reason that is most morally objectionable is the true reason someone supports this cause. This methodology seems to be gaining traction in both parties. I'm not talking about the generally negative speech that emanates from both party bases. Its no surprise that Rush Limbaugh or other conservative pundits credit most Democrats/liberals with stupidity, or that left-wing commentators accuse Republicans/conservatives of greed. No, this moves even further afield than that. In general, I don't count comments directed against particular politicians because I don't put political pandering and manipulation beyond just about anyone seeking national office anymore. Maybe I'm a bit cynical but I think the very nature of the political process in this country has become schizophrenic. We demand a degree of perfection and consistency from candidates that is impossible. There are certain ritualistic performances and statements that candidates have to comply with in order to be politically viable. Take the near worshipful view that all of the candidates have towards 'the troops.' I have no doubt that there is a degree of respect for the military in all of the candidates but not every single solider, sailor, airman or marine is a paragon of virtue. Not every combat action taken by an American has been honorable. Not every soldier is fighting for our freedom. Not every one in the military wants to be making the sacrifices they are making. And yet you wouldn't know it from the candidates' statements because you wouldn't know them as candidates if they didn't make them. Because a candidate changing their message or their views in response to polls or focus groups is no surprise, I personally don't think calling the kettle black is unacceptable. Rude, distasteful and occasionally over the top yes, but not altogether out of the question. Accusations of perfidy are par for the course precisely because of the corrupting nature of American politics.
Of late, however, I have heard comments that presume malice on the part of entire swaths of the American public. The two examples that stick out in my mind were made by those on the left but I know that there are just as many voices on the right echoing the sentiment. The first one that springs to mind was heard last week. A woman made the blanket assertion that we pro-lifers don't really care about the unborn child, rather, we're against abortion because it is a way to control women. By opposing abortion we, primarily, undermine the economic freedom of women who would be forced, in an abortion-free society, to forgo education and job opportunities to gestate and presumably raise their unwanted children. Opposition to abortion is then apparently a way we sexist misogynists can make up for, I dunno, women getting the right to vote or something. The second comment was heard just this morning. Two African-American female commentators were discussing the results of the New Hampshire primaries and suggested that a large number of conservative independents may have switched over to vote for Sen. Obama because they think "a black man can't win the popular vote." Helping him to get the nomination would then ensure a Republican victory by racist conservatives.
Personally, I find this kind of political speech disconcerting and reprehensible. And, most importantly, un-Christian. No matter how strongly we feel about an issue, no matter how staunchly we disagree with someone else, I don't think that we, as Christians, can ever presume malicious intent. If a pro-lifer came out and said "I oppose abortion to keep women down" or "I voted for Obama in the primaries because this country won't elect no n******", then these people have identified their own malice and revealed the ugly depths of their own hearts. But we as Christians have to do better than that. We are called upon to love our neighbor and, at the very least, we have to love them with the language we use to describe them. I think we have to give everyone the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise. Which is why, from here through the election, and probably beyond, I'm not going to sit back and let other Christians speak in this manner. If I hear or read a presumption of malice I'm going to call them on it. I'm going to call them to the higher standard we all know we are obliged to live up to. Who's with me?
12.31.2007
Election
With my parents' recent move to Iowa, the upcoming election has taken on a bit of a new dimension. I never really got worked up over the primaries (or the general election, for that matter) but the wife and I have started paying a bit more attention this time around. This is partly due to the possibly historic role my kin may have in determining the fate of some candidate - a real if slight possibility given the neck-and-neck field on both sides of the race - and partly due to the utter banality of the Republican gaggle. In the past, it was fairly easy to ignore the primaries because the race didn't seem like much of a race at all. But now its like a dinner mystery theater; we're all trying to parse the clues and the polls that will point to whodunit. Or rather, 'whowinsit'. I have no favored candidate, no pick to commit to. I probably dislike Huckabee the least but I must admit part of me wants to see Obama win just for the sheer history-making spectacle it will be for a black man to win the presidency. The sheer history-making spectacle of a woman winning the office can wait for another candidate, in my opinion.
So all this election stuff is swirling around when news of the latest violence in Pakistan and Kenya makes the news, and this the violence of election politics. Who won? Who will win? Who will run? Will there even be elections? In other parts of the world these are killing questions it seems. But not here. Not in America or other Western-style democracies. These may be angry-making questions but today they rarely spill over into actual violence and much rarer still does anyone take a life in the asking. Why? Why are we so different than other parts of the world where elections and violence are hand-in-glove? Whether by specific design or the slow march of progress, our society and culture has disavowed violence in the political process. People resignedly accept even the most bitterly contested loss without raising a fist or a weapon. Whatever the failings of our political system and culture, and they are legion, this has to be one of its greatest strengths. The supremacy of the rule of law - how do we export that to other nations? How do we get the Iraqis to commit to that? How do we get Afghanistan to favor the national whole over the tribal division?
These are almost impossible questions to answer and there are clearly many pieces to the puzzle. Get rid of corruption, strive for a fair judiciary, promote a national symbol, eliminate other forms of public violence and...I'm not sure what else. But ultimately it comes down to changing cultures, even changing religious beliefs to a certain extent. Our culture gradually developed into what it is today - is there any way to speed up that process in parts of the world where violence persists? I would hope that our next president, whoever that may be, has some very smart people working on these kinds of questions. Bush certainly didn't ask them, much to the detriment of his purported mission of spreading democracy. At the very least, we can insist that our next peacefully elected leader get started on some answers.
So all this election stuff is swirling around when news of the latest violence in Pakistan and Kenya makes the news, and this the violence of election politics. Who won? Who will win? Who will run? Will there even be elections? In other parts of the world these are killing questions it seems. But not here. Not in America or other Western-style democracies. These may be angry-making questions but today they rarely spill over into actual violence and much rarer still does anyone take a life in the asking. Why? Why are we so different than other parts of the world where elections and violence are hand-in-glove? Whether by specific design or the slow march of progress, our society and culture has disavowed violence in the political process. People resignedly accept even the most bitterly contested loss without raising a fist or a weapon. Whatever the failings of our political system and culture, and they are legion, this has to be one of its greatest strengths. The supremacy of the rule of law - how do we export that to other nations? How do we get the Iraqis to commit to that? How do we get Afghanistan to favor the national whole over the tribal division?
These are almost impossible questions to answer and there are clearly many pieces to the puzzle. Get rid of corruption, strive for a fair judiciary, promote a national symbol, eliminate other forms of public violence and...I'm not sure what else. But ultimately it comes down to changing cultures, even changing religious beliefs to a certain extent. Our culture gradually developed into what it is today - is there any way to speed up that process in parts of the world where violence persists? I would hope that our next president, whoever that may be, has some very smart people working on these kinds of questions. Bush certainly didn't ask them, much to the detriment of his purported mission of spreading democracy. At the very least, we can insist that our next peacefully elected leader get started on some answers.
12.02.2007
The ravings
This semester for clinicals, we split between critical care and psychiatric nursing. Why they combined these two hugely disparate areas is well beyond me, but they've both been informative. I already work in an ICU, so the place I learned the most during the critical care portion was in the regional burn unit where I saw a young lady burned over almost her entire body do well and another woman burned over about 30% over her body eventually die because of her inhalation injuries. But the last 7 weeks I have been in the psych rotation and for that we spend time on an inpatient wing, where probably half the patients are on court-ordered 72 hour detentions because they are psychotic (in the technical sense, which basically means out of touch with reality) or suicidal. Or both, as it may be. The rest have usually signed themselves in for drug & alcohol detox or because they recognize they're getting out of control. Kind of in conjunction with that we also observe the "assessment team". Their job is to go out to ER's and assess patients that the police or the hospital have called about to see if they meet the criteria for admission into an inpatient unit. They also take walk-ins and do phone interviews.
This last week I went out with one of the assessment team to a local ER to evaluate a young man who had rather abruptly started acting weird. He'd had a recent diagnosis of a rather severe and life-altering illness and was started on some medications that may have caused this change in behavior. The young man, let's call him Ryan (not his real name, obviously) - Ryan's mother was there and the assessor wanted to talk to her first in order to get a better picture of what's been going on in the month since his diagnosis. For some reason she thought it would be appropriate for me to sit with Ryan while she talked with the mother. So I sit down and ask him how's he feeling. And that is when things got surreal.
At first, Ryan just seemed a bit hyper, which would not be all that unusual with the medication he had been on. But over the course of the 45 minutes I sat with him, it became clear that Ryan was far more than just hyper; he was full-on delusional. To call his delusional world elaborate would be an understatement. In his mind, he is the key player in bringing forth the Next Testament of God. The Old Testament was about God the Father, the New Testament about God the Son, and the Next Testament will be about God the Spirit. He does not know how it will come about but the reason he has been chosen is because he has "figured out the calculus" involved, he has seen the secret key that others in the past have missed. At this point, I have to point out that Ryan was a youth pastor who was also attending a Bible college before all this happened. So during this conversation, he's dropping Bible verses and talking about Ecumenical Councils and doing so in a rather sophisticated, even compelling fashion. He really believes what he's saying to me, believes it way down deep. So much so that he gives me a homework assignment! I'm to get all of the Casting Crowns CD's and all of the books by Ted Dekker and Austin Boyd. These will help me understand what is happening in the world right now, what God is using him to do.
As I'm listening to him there is a little battle going on inside my head, and it began with the simple question of what would someone listening to Paul or James or John have thought? To a first century Jew especially, but likely in general, they sounded crazy. To the Jew, the chance that God would reveal himself in a lowly carpenter who died a criminal's death would have had to sound just as preposterous as the "calculus" did to me on Monday. To a Gentile, the very idea of a single God may have seemed patently false. I don't believe this young man was anything other than completely out of touch with reality. And yet....
And yet I do believe in an active God, a God who moves and works in us and through us to change the world. A God who reveals more and more of himself to us, at least individually if not corporately as well. I guess it boils down to what if? What if these are more than just the ravings of delusionary man? What if they aren't? And who am I to decide?
This last week I went out with one of the assessment team to a local ER to evaluate a young man who had rather abruptly started acting weird. He'd had a recent diagnosis of a rather severe and life-altering illness and was started on some medications that may have caused this change in behavior. The young man, let's call him Ryan (not his real name, obviously) - Ryan's mother was there and the assessor wanted to talk to her first in order to get a better picture of what's been going on in the month since his diagnosis. For some reason she thought it would be appropriate for me to sit with Ryan while she talked with the mother. So I sit down and ask him how's he feeling. And that is when things got surreal.
At first, Ryan just seemed a bit hyper, which would not be all that unusual with the medication he had been on. But over the course of the 45 minutes I sat with him, it became clear that Ryan was far more than just hyper; he was full-on delusional. To call his delusional world elaborate would be an understatement. In his mind, he is the key player in bringing forth the Next Testament of God. The Old Testament was about God the Father, the New Testament about God the Son, and the Next Testament will be about God the Spirit. He does not know how it will come about but the reason he has been chosen is because he has "figured out the calculus" involved, he has seen the secret key that others in the past have missed. At this point, I have to point out that Ryan was a youth pastor who was also attending a Bible college before all this happened. So during this conversation, he's dropping Bible verses and talking about Ecumenical Councils and doing so in a rather sophisticated, even compelling fashion. He really believes what he's saying to me, believes it way down deep. So much so that he gives me a homework assignment! I'm to get all of the Casting Crowns CD's and all of the books by Ted Dekker and Austin Boyd. These will help me understand what is happening in the world right now, what God is using him to do.
As I'm listening to him there is a little battle going on inside my head, and it began with the simple question of what would someone listening to Paul or James or John have thought? To a first century Jew especially, but likely in general, they sounded crazy. To the Jew, the chance that God would reveal himself in a lowly carpenter who died a criminal's death would have had to sound just as preposterous as the "calculus" did to me on Monday. To a Gentile, the very idea of a single God may have seemed patently false. I don't believe this young man was anything other than completely out of touch with reality. And yet....
And yet I do believe in an active God, a God who moves and works in us and through us to change the world. A God who reveals more and more of himself to us, at least individually if not corporately as well. I guess it boils down to what if? What if these are more than just the ravings of delusionary man? What if they aren't? And who am I to decide?
10.28.2007
Switched jobs again
School is still miserably busy. I've started in the psych clinical and this teacher apparently has a love affair with grading pointless papers and projects because I've got a ton of 'em. And two of them require extensive "contact hours" outside of class. They're all due between now and Thanksgiving, so its going to be a busy few weeks.
And, perhaps stupidly, I decided now would be a good time to switch to a new area at work. I'm now splitting between the ICU and the ER. The ER is definitely a very different environment and I'm not sure if its for me or not, having only done a week of orientation. Of course, my current ambivalence could stem from the fact that I have to work three Saturdays as part of my orientation, which is taking away precious time from school work.
Just about 6 more weeks of school. Thank God.
And, perhaps stupidly, I decided now would be a good time to switch to a new area at work. I'm now splitting between the ICU and the ER. The ER is definitely a very different environment and I'm not sure if its for me or not, having only done a week of orientation. Of course, my current ambivalence could stem from the fact that I have to work three Saturdays as part of my orientation, which is taking away precious time from school work.
Just about 6 more weeks of school. Thank God.
9.16.2007
School
School is kicking my butt. I thought maybe this semester would be a little less with the busy work given that its "critical care." But that is not the case. I finished my first care plan this weekend, have 2 tests this week, a largeish paper to write next weekend and then a test that next week. After that, I might have a chance to finish my book review. Or not. They tend to toss a lot of things in at the last minute.
8.23.2007
Evil and the Justice of God
A couple of posts ago, I indicated that I was reading Evil and the Justice of God by NT Wright and described it as a disappointingly slim tome. Can I change my answer to just disappointing?
The book is short; only 174 pages including the index with just 5 chapters. Some online reviewers have indicated that Wright intended to pursue a larger volume but eventually decided to offer up this condensed version for publication. Oh, would that he had stuck to his original plan. The book suffers not because Wright has too little to say, but because he has too much and fails to do justice to his arguments. He only skims the surface of a subject that should be dived.
The first chapter is entitled Evil is Still a Four-Letter Word. The brief introduction to the chapter is an interesting exploration of why Revelations describes a new creation minus the sea and gives a concise overview of Wrights views on modernity's understanding of the problem of evil. Which is, specifically, progress shall overcome. The modern western world believes in progress and the evolution of society. As Wright puts it:
Still in the first chapter, Wright's section on the nihilism of postmodernism is cutting but arguably betrays his stance as a modern thinker. I think he is correct in his argument that, while we "can't escape evil within postmodernity...you can't find anyone to blame either." By deconstructing all metanarratives, even the metanarrative of the individual self, postmodernity leads to a fluid, un-fixed understanding of "I". How can "I" be held responsible for my actions when the "I" of today is not the "I" of yesterday which committed those acts? Postmodernism further muddies the waters by deconstructing the myth of human progress. However, instead of replacing it with a more realistic view of humanity, growth and our future potential (in Christ), postmodernity spins a web of nihilism. There will be no progress, no change, no redemption. Instead of a nuanced view of evil, we have the mire of the status quo.
Wright thinks there are 3 elements key to the West getting a realistic understanding of evil. The first is coming to see that Western-style democracy is not perfect and certainly not a world panacea. We're having enough trouble doing it right ourselves to be foisting democracy off on everyone around the globe in disparate cultures. Democracy is likely the best form of government out there for today's world, but it may create as many problems as it solves, or at least proffer them up in a deceptively different guise. The second element is psychological; we must come to see the inherent ambivalence at the heart of man and that any individual can perform acts of great goodness and great wickedness. And some give themselves over entirely to the lure of wickedness. "What I think we must come to terms with is that when we talk about evil we must recognize, as neither modernity nor postmodernity seems to me to do, that there is such a thing as human evil and that it takes various forms." Which brings up the third element; the recognition that the line between good and evil, us and them, runs through each and every one of us as individuals. We must not make the mistake of moral equivalency, viewing each criminal act as inherently equal, but nor must we make the opposite mistake of supposing that the criminal acts of "our side" (or "me") aren't evil when done at the expense of the other.
Wright finishes the chapter by asking the church to start to try to make sense out of all of this. How can the church teach a nuanced view of evil in today's world, specifically today's America? I think most conservative churches would be very hard pressed to do this in our political environment, given their role in helping to create it. To turn to a nuanced view of evil, to recognize America's complicity in evil around the globe, would just be eating too much crow for some leaders and would not be tolerated by the more nationalistic Christians among their flock. Which brings up one of the shallow points of this work. I expected Wright to tackle these, and other pressing issues, in the subsequent chapters since he did not raise them here. He has started off on a great foot, but quickly starts to get tripped up as we shall see.
(cont)
The book is short; only 174 pages including the index with just 5 chapters. Some online reviewers have indicated that Wright intended to pursue a larger volume but eventually decided to offer up this condensed version for publication. Oh, would that he had stuck to his original plan. The book suffers not because Wright has too little to say, but because he has too much and fails to do justice to his arguments. He only skims the surface of a subject that should be dived.
The first chapter is entitled Evil is Still a Four-Letter Word. The brief introduction to the chapter is an interesting exploration of why Revelations describes a new creation minus the sea and gives a concise overview of Wrights views on modernity's understanding of the problem of evil. Which is, specifically, progress shall overcome. The modern western world believes in progress and the evolution of society. As Wright puts it:
"In this climate, the fact that we live in 'this day and age' means that certain things are now to be expected; we envision a steady march toward freedom and justice, conceived often in terms of the slow but sure triumph of Western-style liberal democracies and soft versions of socialism. Not to put too fine a point on it, when people say that certain things are unacceptable 'now that we're living in the twenty-first century,' they are appealing to an assumed doctrine of progress...and progress in a particular direction." (pg 22)If we just wait long enough, the inevitable progression of our society will eventually eliminate evil. There may be bumps along the way but things will get sorted out in the end. Wright identifies three of these bumps that he thinks should have derailed this blind faith in human growth, but didn't. World Wars I and II are the primary event-bumps, while writers like Barth and Dostoyevsky, both of whom criticized belief in "the steady advance of the kingdom of God from within the historical process," provided the intellectual bump. This has left Western society ill-equipped to deal with the "new problem of evil" (the sub-title of this section). When evil does occur, then, we first try to ignore it until it rises up and makes its presence keenly felt. This willful ignorance makes us surprised when evil does present itself, which, third, leads us to respond in "immature and dangerous ways." One of the immature responses to evil Wright singles out is the dichotomy of blame; I am totally not to blame or totally to blame. Wright thinks, and I agree, that we need a more nuanced view of evil, one that takes seriously our individual and national complicities in evil but that also does not fail to take into account other people's (individual and corporate) evil actions. We have to be able to own up to our own failures while being willing to point out those of others. Adding fuel to our evil-blind fire is postmodernity.
Still in the first chapter, Wright's section on the nihilism of postmodernism is cutting but arguably betrays his stance as a modern thinker. I think he is correct in his argument that, while we "can't escape evil within postmodernity...you can't find anyone to blame either." By deconstructing all metanarratives, even the metanarrative of the individual self, postmodernity leads to a fluid, un-fixed understanding of "I". How can "I" be held responsible for my actions when the "I" of today is not the "I" of yesterday which committed those acts? Postmodernism further muddies the waters by deconstructing the myth of human progress. However, instead of replacing it with a more realistic view of humanity, growth and our future potential (in Christ), postmodernity spins a web of nihilism. There will be no progress, no change, no redemption. Instead of a nuanced view of evil, we have the mire of the status quo.
Wright thinks there are 3 elements key to the West getting a realistic understanding of evil. The first is coming to see that Western-style democracy is not perfect and certainly not a world panacea. We're having enough trouble doing it right ourselves to be foisting democracy off on everyone around the globe in disparate cultures. Democracy is likely the best form of government out there for today's world, but it may create as many problems as it solves, or at least proffer them up in a deceptively different guise. The second element is psychological; we must come to see the inherent ambivalence at the heart of man and that any individual can perform acts of great goodness and great wickedness. And some give themselves over entirely to the lure of wickedness. "What I think we must come to terms with is that when we talk about evil we must recognize, as neither modernity nor postmodernity seems to me to do, that there is such a thing as human evil and that it takes various forms." Which brings up the third element; the recognition that the line between good and evil, us and them, runs through each and every one of us as individuals. We must not make the mistake of moral equivalency, viewing each criminal act as inherently equal, but nor must we make the opposite mistake of supposing that the criminal acts of "our side" (or "me") aren't evil when done at the expense of the other.
Wright finishes the chapter by asking the church to start to try to make sense out of all of this. How can the church teach a nuanced view of evil in today's world, specifically today's America? I think most conservative churches would be very hard pressed to do this in our political environment, given their role in helping to create it. To turn to a nuanced view of evil, to recognize America's complicity in evil around the globe, would just be eating too much crow for some leaders and would not be tolerated by the more nationalistic Christians among their flock. Which brings up one of the shallow points of this work. I expected Wright to tackle these, and other pressing issues, in the subsequent chapters since he did not raise them here. He has started off on a great foot, but quickly starts to get tripped up as we shall see.
(cont)
8.14.2007
Baby registry
Over the weekend, the wife and I went out a registered at a Target and Babies 'R Us. Since we're going to wait until the delivery to find out what we're having, we ended up picking out a lot of stuff in greens & yellows. I realize now one reason so many people decide to find out the sex of the baby; much easier to register. But the thing that really struck me during these trips was how totally consumer-oriented this type of registry has become. Baby has become big business, and it is evident the moment the staff person hands you the checklist of things you'll "need" and "should" register for. The checklist contains dozens of items. You actually need, and I mean need in the conventional sense of stuff you actually require, maybe a third of them. Things like clothes, bottles, diapers, a crib, car seat - the basic stuff. But the list also includes no fewer than three different pieces of sleep furniture (crib, bassinet and portable bassinet) and their various linen requirements, as well as a long list of other items that the baby will likely outgrow within a few months. Knowing that most couples do not have more than 2 children, these items will have a short half-life in most families, ultimately heading for the landfill or the garage sale.
What was most disturbing is how easily we started getting into adding to our list, and this with a mother-to-be who has spent ample time around small children and has a good idea of their actual needs. All these items of convenience just seem so, well, convenient. Which points to a sad reality that many people in this country seem to be looking at their children as either accessories or time-management problems. Which is why so many of the wares in these stores are geared towards fashion & decorating and child-warehousing. Your kid starts to bug you, put 'em in their bouncy seat, fashionably colored to match your existing decor. After we got home, we started mentally reviewing what we registered for and realized we probably didn't need most of it or that what it was ridiculously overpriced. How would a young mother or couple with no experience know you don't need some of this stuff or that its a waste of money? For me, the takeaway here is that its never too early to start teaching your children lessons about what's important in life, and it surely is not a $250 crib bedding set.
What was most disturbing is how easily we started getting into adding to our list, and this with a mother-to-be who has spent ample time around small children and has a good idea of their actual needs. All these items of convenience just seem so, well, convenient. Which points to a sad reality that many people in this country seem to be looking at their children as either accessories or time-management problems. Which is why so many of the wares in these stores are geared towards fashion & decorating and child-warehousing. Your kid starts to bug you, put 'em in their bouncy seat, fashionably colored to match your existing decor. After we got home, we started mentally reviewing what we registered for and realized we probably didn't need most of it or that what it was ridiculously overpriced. How would a young mother or couple with no experience know you don't need some of this stuff or that its a waste of money? For me, the takeaway here is that its never too early to start teaching your children lessons about what's important in life, and it surely is not a $250 crib bedding set.
8.07.2007
Sundry
I turned 30 on Sunday. I turned 20 during my advanced training in the Army down at Ft Huachuca - needless to say a lot has happened in the last 1o years. I don't feel 30, though never having been 30 before, I'm not quite sure what 30 actually feels like. In the last few months, as I've contemplated this milestone, I suppose I've been rather uneasy with what this means. I'm 30 and still in school - for an associates degree, mind you - not established in any career (though both will change next May when I graduate and become an RN), not sure of where I want to live, am not well connected in any church, have few close friends and am really nowhere near where I thought I'd be when I turned 20. There are, mercifully, things I am quite clear on and happy about - my wonderful wife and coming child are at the top of that list. But all in all, there seemed rather more to be sad, or at least not happy, about. The day has come and gone, and aside from a few fun new things in my possession, it was a day like any other. And instead of making me sad, it oddly made me hopeful. These kinds of milestones give us a rod with which to measure our lives. In the last 10 years, have I become more like the person I want to be? Am I making progress towards my goals? What more do I need to accomplish? What do I need to change? This birthday has given me a reason to contemplate things that I may have been too busy to focus on otherwise and in my self-evaluation, I see new strengths and new possibilities within me as well as areas that need continued improvement. But on the whole, I think I am more like the person I want to be than I was 10 years ago. And that gives me hope.
It doesn't hurt that we just finished up a week in Florida, getting home somewhat late Saturday night. We drove down, which afforded us several opportunities to be incredibly grateful. On the way down, just inside of Tennessee, we got rear-ended on the highway going 70+ mph. A young guy in a black car came flying up behind us and hit us as he apparently mis-timed his move into the left lane. I was able to keep the car on the road but unable to get his license plate. Thankfully, the damage was minimal, mostly just paint, and we did not careen off the road to an untimely demise or serious injury. But that incident came to pretty much characterize the drivers we encountered down south. Even in pouring rain with horrible visibility, people were still driving well over 70mph and hanging out less than a car length behind other vehicles. It is no wonder we saw 1 definite and 2 likely fatal car accidents on the highway in Florida. We intended to drive up and stay with my uncle in Louisville on our way back, but about 30 miles south of the city, our car started squealing horribly. It only got worse when we slowed down and got off the highway. At first, I thought it was the power steering pump, but then noticed 2 bolts just sitting loose on top of the alternator. We had to get towed into a repair shop, which was by all external evaluations, a rather seedy place ran by a couple of unkempt individuals. First impressions did not inspire much trust. But these men proved me wrong, dead-wrong, fixing the vehicle right then and there and not charging me a dime. They could have easily taken me for a new power steering pump and belts, but they stayed open late to wave off any recompense. But if you are ever in the south Louisville area and need some auto repairs, I couldn't recommend BKC Auto enough.
Aside from those 2 unfortunate incidents, Florida was beautiful. The wife's uncle owns a condo that is about a 100 yard walk from a pristine, white-sand beach. Just gorgeous. I got a sunburn in a very weird pattern on either side of my chest where I apparently failed to apply sunscreen, but that didn't stop me from swimming and enjoying the beach most of the days we were there. We even made a little side-trip to St Petersburg, which is a pretty nice city. I haven't been to Louisville in at least 10 years, probably more like 15, and got to see cousins and their kids that I hadn't seen in that time. Louisville is also a nice city - not too big but with a lot going on. My uncle is an avid sailor, so we may get a chance to head down there and enjoy some time out on the water sometime this fall.
I've received or purchased several new books that I'm either presently reading or will be reading shortly. They are:
Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, by Anonymous. I'm about halfway through this. While many of the points about the Bush administration's failure to consider Afghani culture before the invasion and the West's consistent misunderstanding of bin Laden are trenchant and important, the author seems locked in a world where neither societies nor people are capable of any meaningful change. His is a rather pessimistic view of the human condition and the book is the poorer for it.
Evil and the Justice of God, by NT Wright. I generally enjoy Wright's books and essays, what I can understand of them, that is. He sometimes assumes his reader knows the positions and parties of various debates certainly more than I do, but such is not the case with this disappointingly thin tome. He is clear and concise, but I wish he would include fewer "but we don't have space for that here's" and more expansion on those subjects. I will likely give a fuller review after I finish it.
Consumed: How Markets Corrupt Children, Infantilize Adults and Swallow Citizens Whole, by Benjamin R. Barber. I have only briefly flipped through this book a couple of times, but with my growing awareness of how our consumeristic culture discourages faith, reasoned thought or mere satisfaction, I thought this looked like an interesting read.
A Thousand Splendid Suns, by Khaled Hosseini. I thought The Kite Runner was good and this is supposed to be even better. This novel covers a more contemporary period and I'm looking forward to seeing an Afghan's perception of the event in his country since 9/11.
It doesn't hurt that we just finished up a week in Florida, getting home somewhat late Saturday night. We drove down, which afforded us several opportunities to be incredibly grateful. On the way down, just inside of Tennessee, we got rear-ended on the highway going 70+ mph. A young guy in a black car came flying up behind us and hit us as he apparently mis-timed his move into the left lane. I was able to keep the car on the road but unable to get his license plate. Thankfully, the damage was minimal, mostly just paint, and we did not careen off the road to an untimely demise or serious injury. But that incident came to pretty much characterize the drivers we encountered down south. Even in pouring rain with horrible visibility, people were still driving well over 70mph and hanging out less than a car length behind other vehicles. It is no wonder we saw 1 definite and 2 likely fatal car accidents on the highway in Florida. We intended to drive up and stay with my uncle in Louisville on our way back, but about 30 miles south of the city, our car started squealing horribly. It only got worse when we slowed down and got off the highway. At first, I thought it was the power steering pump, but then noticed 2 bolts just sitting loose on top of the alternator. We had to get towed into a repair shop, which was by all external evaluations, a rather seedy place ran by a couple of unkempt individuals. First impressions did not inspire much trust. But these men proved me wrong, dead-wrong, fixing the vehicle right then and there and not charging me a dime. They could have easily taken me for a new power steering pump and belts, but they stayed open late to wave off any recompense. But if you are ever in the south Louisville area and need some auto repairs, I couldn't recommend BKC Auto enough.
Aside from those 2 unfortunate incidents, Florida was beautiful. The wife's uncle owns a condo that is about a 100 yard walk from a pristine, white-sand beach. Just gorgeous. I got a sunburn in a very weird pattern on either side of my chest where I apparently failed to apply sunscreen, but that didn't stop me from swimming and enjoying the beach most of the days we were there. We even made a little side-trip to St Petersburg, which is a pretty nice city. I haven't been to Louisville in at least 10 years, probably more like 15, and got to see cousins and their kids that I hadn't seen in that time. Louisville is also a nice city - not too big but with a lot going on. My uncle is an avid sailor, so we may get a chance to head down there and enjoy some time out on the water sometime this fall.
I've received or purchased several new books that I'm either presently reading or will be reading shortly. They are:
Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, by Anonymous. I'm about halfway through this. While many of the points about the Bush administration's failure to consider Afghani culture before the invasion and the West's consistent misunderstanding of bin Laden are trenchant and important, the author seems locked in a world where neither societies nor people are capable of any meaningful change. His is a rather pessimistic view of the human condition and the book is the poorer for it.
Evil and the Justice of God, by NT Wright. I generally enjoy Wright's books and essays, what I can understand of them, that is. He sometimes assumes his reader knows the positions and parties of various debates certainly more than I do, but such is not the case with this disappointingly thin tome. He is clear and concise, but I wish he would include fewer "but we don't have space for that here's" and more expansion on those subjects. I will likely give a fuller review after I finish it.
Consumed: How Markets Corrupt Children, Infantilize Adults and Swallow Citizens Whole, by Benjamin R. Barber. I have only briefly flipped through this book a couple of times, but with my growing awareness of how our consumeristic culture discourages faith, reasoned thought or mere satisfaction, I thought this looked like an interesting read.
A Thousand Splendid Suns, by Khaled Hosseini. I thought The Kite Runner was good and this is supposed to be even better. This novel covers a more contemporary period and I'm looking forward to seeing an Afghan's perception of the event in his country since 9/11.
7.17.2007
Torture, pt 2
This is a little free-form, but hey, I've been busy.
If you're willing to kill someone, why would you have any problem with torturing them? Honestly, if you view someone else's life as expendable, which is necessarily how you must view someone if you are willing to sacrifice their life for some "policy objectives", why is their pain and suffering less acceptable than their death? It isn't, or at least it shouldn't be. If you're willing to consign someone to eternity, why should a few hours of pain trouble your conscience? Again, it shouldn't. So why does it? Why are people who are willing to support the killing of combatants and non-combatants alike, which is inevitable in modern warfare, unwilling to support torture? Personally, I think they lack the courage of their convictions. Or, rather, we see that their convictions about the taking of other human life is rooted more in fear for self than love of neighbor.
This may seem like a non-sequitur, so let me explain. If one is willing to kill, if one believes that the death of person A is necessary to save the life of the innocent person B, then on what basis would one decide that torturing person A or C (A's accomplice) is wrong? It clearly cannot be love of enemy, because the executing agent cannot simultaneously love and kill someone on the field of battle. So persons A & C are not spared torture because of love for their persons, since their deaths are viable options. If one is truly acting out of love for neighbor (the innocent B), how is sparing A & C pain, but not death, moral? You have essentially said that B's life is worth A's life, but not his suffering. On what basis is that calculation made? I can see no moral rubric for it; B's life is worth how much of A's suffering? Is there a time-limit? If we could strap A into some machine that would quantify his pain, is there a number over which B's life becomes forfeit, say 7 on a scale of 1-10? No matter how one attempts to negotiate that nebulous concept, it is clear that saving B is not really done for the love of B if one is not willing to torture A & C. So why do so many find it permissible to kill but not torture? It is irrational and on that basis, I can surmise only that it is a course dictated by fear. One is afraid that they will be next, or at least A will get to them somewhere down the line. B's life is entirely incidental to saving one's own self. Killing A can be justified, but I think the deep internal contradiction that is one's un-love for person B makes torture too messy and too direct. One is not the target & one doesn't love B, so a quick death is acceptable, but causing so much pain to someone for an essentially worthless objective is just too much.
So at least those who are willing to torture & kill are being consistent in their moral convictions. They understand the rubric and are unafraid to get their hands dirty. Whether its love of self or love of neighbor, the torturer is simply moving forward in a consistent manner. Death or torture; its all the same. Clearly love for one's enemy is non-existent. For Christians at least, this is the wedge. We are called to love both neighbor and enemy and not one more than the other, but both more than the self. The willingness to kill and to torture both betray a fundamentally consistent imbalance in love, weighting love of self, then neighbor and finally enemy.
What would the Christian's situation be if Christ had operated under that paradigm? (cont)
If you're willing to kill someone, why would you have any problem with torturing them? Honestly, if you view someone else's life as expendable, which is necessarily how you must view someone if you are willing to sacrifice their life for some "policy objectives", why is their pain and suffering less acceptable than their death? It isn't, or at least it shouldn't be. If you're willing to consign someone to eternity, why should a few hours of pain trouble your conscience? Again, it shouldn't. So why does it? Why are people who are willing to support the killing of combatants and non-combatants alike, which is inevitable in modern warfare, unwilling to support torture? Personally, I think they lack the courage of their convictions. Or, rather, we see that their convictions about the taking of other human life is rooted more in fear for self than love of neighbor.
This may seem like a non-sequitur, so let me explain. If one is willing to kill, if one believes that the death of person A is necessary to save the life of the innocent person B, then on what basis would one decide that torturing person A or C (A's accomplice) is wrong? It clearly cannot be love of enemy, because the executing agent cannot simultaneously love and kill someone on the field of battle. So persons A & C are not spared torture because of love for their persons, since their deaths are viable options. If one is truly acting out of love for neighbor (the innocent B), how is sparing A & C pain, but not death, moral? You have essentially said that B's life is worth A's life, but not his suffering. On what basis is that calculation made? I can see no moral rubric for it; B's life is worth how much of A's suffering? Is there a time-limit? If we could strap A into some machine that would quantify his pain, is there a number over which B's life becomes forfeit, say 7 on a scale of 1-10? No matter how one attempts to negotiate that nebulous concept, it is clear that saving B is not really done for the love of B if one is not willing to torture A & C. So why do so many find it permissible to kill but not torture? It is irrational and on that basis, I can surmise only that it is a course dictated by fear. One is afraid that they will be next, or at least A will get to them somewhere down the line. B's life is entirely incidental to saving one's own self. Killing A can be justified, but I think the deep internal contradiction that is one's un-love for person B makes torture too messy and too direct. One is not the target & one doesn't love B, so a quick death is acceptable, but causing so much pain to someone for an essentially worthless objective is just too much.
So at least those who are willing to torture & kill are being consistent in their moral convictions. They understand the rubric and are unafraid to get their hands dirty. Whether its love of self or love of neighbor, the torturer is simply moving forward in a consistent manner. Death or torture; its all the same. Clearly love for one's enemy is non-existent. For Christians at least, this is the wedge. We are called to love both neighbor and enemy and not one more than the other, but both more than the self. The willingness to kill and to torture both betray a fundamentally consistent imbalance in love, weighting love of self, then neighbor and finally enemy.
What would the Christian's situation be if Christ had operated under that paradigm? (cont)
6.28.2007
Big News
The wife is pregnant! And in the first month of trying, thank you very much. We told most of the family yesterday. My in-laws already have 5 grandkids, but this is the first on my side, so while the in-laws were very excited, my mom was positively explosive. The official due date is February 27th, 2008. Personally, I'm hoping the little tyke will stay in just 2 days longer and be a leap baby, which would be pretty sweet.
All tips, hints, suggestions, ideas and experiences with pregnancy and baby-related stuff is greatly appreciated.
All tips, hints, suggestions, ideas and experiences with pregnancy and baby-related stuff is greatly appreciated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
