It is hard to know where to begin in listing what is wrong with the article "Gay rights advocates need patience" by LZ Granderson on the CNN site. I suppose this will work for starters. After saying that he has meditated recently on 1 Corinthians 13:4 ("Love is patient, love is kind"), Mr. Granderson writes, "I believe there is something each of us can pull from that Bible verse. We may not agree on spirituality or the existence of God, but we can agree that love is one of the most beautiful and mysterious forces."
The challenge to that is that he presumes a shared definition and understanding of love. He is also working, as all English-speaking writers are, under the constraints of a language that is poor when expressing ideas of love. Greek, for example, is well known for having multiple "love" words. There is agape, the word for brotherly, self-sacrificing, love. There is eros, which is romantic and erotic love. There is philos, the love between friends. As I often tell my students, it is inconceivable that I should use in English the same word to describe my feelings for a hamburger, my wife, a Mustang, my country, my children, and God, yet here I am, stuck with l-o-v-e in each instance.
Because of this, we must ask which form of love it is that is "one of the most beautiful and mysterious of forces." And is this something I really can pull from the Bible, even if I disagree with those who say God exists?
Mr. Granderson writes on the assumption that the Bible is just a poetic manual of advice, some of which, like 1 Corinthians 13:4, he can readily accept, while other parts he can just as readily reject. From such an understanding, the Bible is no different from the latest Dan Brown novel. There are parts that I may like and will share with friends, but other parts that I dislike or find implausible I can simply skip over.
What Mr. Granderson fails to understand is that the Bible is distinct from every other book penned by human hands. It was certainly penned by human hands, but at the inspiration and guidance of God through His Holy Spirit. To suggest that it is a mere moral manual would be akin to using Michelangelo's David as a doorstop in a factory warehouse. Yes, it could be used that way, but to do so misses the true nature of the piece.
Of course, when one misses the true nature of a piece, one is also more likely to misuse it, and that is what Mr. Granderson does as his article continues. With regard to the recent vote in Maine disallowing homosexual marriage, he writes that "at the very core of the debate over marriage equality is that scripture's concept of love." Here is a misuse of Scripture that derives from a fundamental misunderstanding of it. I am not sure what notion of love Mr. Granderson has in mind, but it is not the love mentioned in 1 Corinthians 13:4. The Greek word used in that verse is agape, but where can we go to know what that means? A trip to Liddell and Scott's Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon turns up this definition: love, esp. brotherly love, charity; the love of God for man and of man for God, N.T. Of course turning to a dictionary is hardly the scholarly way to approach defining a word, but even this non-theological reference work points to the New Testament itself as containing a particular understanding of this word. So what, then, does the New Testament have to say about love? Of the more than 250 references to love, we find these:
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16, NIV)
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8, NIV)
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,... (Galatians 5:22, NIV)
Such an understanding of love can only come from an understanding of and relationship with the God Who is love, the God Who demonstrated what love is by allowing His Son to die on our behalf, the God Who sent His Spirit to produce in us this love as a fruit of that relationship. Not only is such an understanding shut off from one who approaches the Bible as if there were no God, but such an understanding shows clearly that, contra Mr. Granderson, at the core of the homosexualist side of the debate over marriage is a concept of love is that completely at odds with the concept of love in 1 Corinthians 13:4.
Then, of course, there is the false understanding of "sin" and "sinner" as Mr. Granderson quotes Gandhi's "hate the sin, love the sinner." Mr. Granderson explains, "It may seem weird to think in those terms because many well-meaning Christians also like to use that last phrase to justify oppressing gay people at the polls." First of all, to co-opt language of "sin" and "sinners" while admitting that one need not even believe in God to derive Mr. Granderson's position from Scripture is ludicrous. While it can even be argued that notions of right and wrong, truth and falsehood cannot be fully or adequately understood apart from God, there can be absolutely no understanding of sin apart from God. Furthermore, to equate sin with those who stand for the purity of marriage as the revealed sacrament it is, the holy union among a man, a woman, and God Himself and to label those who do stand thus as sinners, is mockery and perversion in the extreme. Yet, when right is routinely branded as wrong in the favor of rights, it is no surprise that perversion in the loins should spread to perversion of the mind and its logic as well. Nor should it come as a surprise that in the United States of Victimhood, Mr. Granderson should see any societal efforts to make the practice of sin impermissible as oppression.
Mr. Granderson concludes with another quotation from Gandhi. "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians." For his parting shot, he leaves us with this. "You don't have to like either in order to have love in your heart."
No, you certainly do not have to like Christ to have love in your heart, if by love you mean a saccharin, sentimentalized emotion or an intellegentsia-approved, sanitized tolerance or rawm, sexual satisfaction. Fortunately for all of us, this does not stop Christ Himself from endeavoring to reach us with His own love, the only kind of love that at the end of the day matters or is real.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Chivalry
When I saw an article titled "8 so-called 'chivalrous' moves that creep us out" on CNN.com, I knew I had to check it out for more reasons than the redundant use of "so-called" with the quotation marks of sarcasm around the key word. I had a hunch it would take aim at genuine acts of civility and decency, and I was right.
I would agree with numbers 1 and 5 on the list, ordering a meal for a woman and carrying her purse, but I disagree with the rejection of pulling out a chair or helping a lady on with her coat. Can she do these things? Of course she can, but these are small courtesies that can show respect. If she asks a man not to do them, he should respect that, too, but in and of themselves, I think these are marks of civility, right along with holding the door open for a lady.
The one that I most stoutly disagreed with, however, was number 6, asking the woman's father for her hand in marriage. Writes the author, "So outdated. Pops just shouldn't be involved in our relationship. No one should know you want to marry them before they do."
To put this in technical terms, wrongedy-wrong-wrong! Yes, I know that this hearkens back to ages and cultures in which the paterfamilias had the ultimate say over the lives of his children. Yes, I know it carries a whiff of the days in which doweries were discussed and marriages were arranged, often without the consent or even the knowledge of those being married.
Yet marriage is never simply between two people, despite that it is two people who are becoming one flesh. Marriage involves the joining in greater and lesser ways of two families. A man shows respect for his in-laws by approaching them about marrying their daughter, and it certainly does no harm for him to have a healthy sense of respect/awe/fear of her father. A man needs to have his father-in-law's face in mind when he thinks about hitting that man's baby girl or cheating on her.
Such a request also honors the bride-to-be. A girl who has grown up knowing the blessing of strong, loving, authentic fatherhood modeled on, yet never attaining, that of God the Father, knows a security of inestimable worth, one from which she can grow and develop in confidence rather than in rebellion, so that she may become the glorious daughter of the King she was designed to be. To move from the loving care and protection of her father with whom she has learned and matured to that of her husband with whom she will lead a family, and all without missing a beat, is, quite simply, how it should be.
The blessings that this new mother and father will then be able to impart to their own children will, like Jesus' proverbial mustard tree, grow and spread many branches. They will be able to teach their son what it is to be a man, not in the way the world teaches by counting notches in a bedpost, which any male can do, but what it means to be an actual man, full of courage, honor, and strength that is rightly used and directed. They will be able to teach their daughter what she should look for and what she has every right to expect in a man, for it will have been modeled well in their family. In so doing, they will have helped in their own small, yet deeply significant way, to turn the tide of base, animalistic acts (they are not rituals) that pass for social interaction between men and women today.
I would agree with numbers 1 and 5 on the list, ordering a meal for a woman and carrying her purse, but I disagree with the rejection of pulling out a chair or helping a lady on with her coat. Can she do these things? Of course she can, but these are small courtesies that can show respect. If she asks a man not to do them, he should respect that, too, but in and of themselves, I think these are marks of civility, right along with holding the door open for a lady.
The one that I most stoutly disagreed with, however, was number 6, asking the woman's father for her hand in marriage. Writes the author, "So outdated. Pops just shouldn't be involved in our relationship. No one should know you want to marry them before they do."
To put this in technical terms, wrongedy-wrong-wrong! Yes, I know that this hearkens back to ages and cultures in which the paterfamilias had the ultimate say over the lives of his children. Yes, I know it carries a whiff of the days in which doweries were discussed and marriages were arranged, often without the consent or even the knowledge of those being married.
Yet marriage is never simply between two people, despite that it is two people who are becoming one flesh. Marriage involves the joining in greater and lesser ways of two families. A man shows respect for his in-laws by approaching them about marrying their daughter, and it certainly does no harm for him to have a healthy sense of respect/awe/fear of her father. A man needs to have his father-in-law's face in mind when he thinks about hitting that man's baby girl or cheating on her.
Such a request also honors the bride-to-be. A girl who has grown up knowing the blessing of strong, loving, authentic fatherhood modeled on, yet never attaining, that of God the Father, knows a security of inestimable worth, one from which she can grow and develop in confidence rather than in rebellion, so that she may become the glorious daughter of the King she was designed to be. To move from the loving care and protection of her father with whom she has learned and matured to that of her husband with whom she will lead a family, and all without missing a beat, is, quite simply, how it should be.
The blessings that this new mother and father will then be able to impart to their own children will, like Jesus' proverbial mustard tree, grow and spread many branches. They will be able to teach their son what it is to be a man, not in the way the world teaches by counting notches in a bedpost, which any male can do, but what it means to be an actual man, full of courage, honor, and strength that is rightly used and directed. They will be able to teach their daughter what she should look for and what she has every right to expect in a man, for it will have been modeled well in their family. In so doing, they will have helped in their own small, yet deeply significant way, to turn the tide of base, animalistic acts (they are not rituals) that pass for social interaction between men and women today.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Update on Baby 14
In the previous post I wondered whether the murderer at Ft. Hood would be charged with a fourteenth homicide, that of the unborn baby of one of the adult victims. LifeSite News has a piece stating that he will be charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which includes the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. According to this article, "The UVVA requires that the justice system charge the perpetrator of a violent crime against a pregnant woman, resulting in death or bodily injury to her unborn child, with committing a separate and distinct offence against the mother's unborn child."
Clearly this is a law rooted in justice, and I am glad to hear that the perpetrator of the attacks at Ft. Hood may stand subject to such. How is it possible, though, that an abortion is not a direct violation of this very act? How is not an act of violence perpetrated against a woman to have her child ripped from her womb, an act that most certainly results in "death or bodily injury to her unborn child"?
Clearly this is a law rooted in justice, and I am glad to hear that the perpetrator of the attacks at Ft. Hood may stand subject to such. How is it possible, though, that an abortion is not a direct violation of this very act? How is not an act of violence perpetrated against a woman to have her child ripped from her womb, an act that most certainly results in "death or bodily injury to her unborn child"?
Anonymous #14
As the Ft. Hood story unfolds, we are learning that among the 13 adult murder victims, one was a pregnant woman. The adult victim's father is quoted in this CNN article as saying, "What hurts the most is that one of her own killed her and in her own house...."
No doubt you will have caught the repeated adjective "adult" to describe the 13 casualties. The fourteenth, unnamed casualty, was the baby who was three months old and living in what should have been the safety of her mother's womb.
When the perpetrator is eventually tried for his crimes, it will be interesting to see whether he will be tried for 13 or 14 murders. Injustice will be compounded if it is the lesser number.
Of course, what the father of the slain mother-to-be says could well be said of all the innocents slaughtered through the murderous rampages that take place daily, and legally, in the form of abortion. "What hurts the most is that one of her own killed her and in her own house."
A woman in our church once took a baby who had died and been discarded, gave the child a name, and a proper burial. Even these acts of decency and civility were denied the anonymous fourteenth victim of the Ft. Hood slayings. Tragically, they are denied to 46 million more every year.
No doubt you will have caught the repeated adjective "adult" to describe the 13 casualties. The fourteenth, unnamed casualty, was the baby who was three months old and living in what should have been the safety of her mother's womb.
When the perpetrator is eventually tried for his crimes, it will be interesting to see whether he will be tried for 13 or 14 murders. Injustice will be compounded if it is the lesser number.
Of course, what the father of the slain mother-to-be says could well be said of all the innocents slaughtered through the murderous rampages that take place daily, and legally, in the form of abortion. "What hurts the most is that one of her own killed her and in her own house."
A woman in our church once took a baby who had died and been discarded, gave the child a name, and a proper burial. Even these acts of decency and civility were denied the anonymous fourteenth victim of the Ft. Hood slayings. Tragically, they are denied to 46 million more every year.
Monday, November 9, 2009
A Trojan Horse at Ft. Hood
Everyone knows the story of Trojan Horse, but because not everyone recognizes that it is told in Book II of Vergil's Aeneid, they do not know all the details. Interestingly, we read that a priest of Neptune named Laocoon early suspected treachery.
Laocoon is the first of all to run down from the high citadel with a great crowd pressing around him and from far off he shouts, "What great insanity has you, miserable fellow-citizens of mine? Do you believe that the enemy has sailed away? Do you think that any gifts of the Greeks lack trickery? Was this what Ulysses was known for? There are either Greeks shut up in hiding within the wood of the horse or it is machine that has been made to threaten our walls, to spy into our homes and to come down into our city. Either that, or there is some other treachery hiding there. Do not trust the horse, Trojans. Whatever it is, I fear the Greeks, even those bringing gifts. (Aeneid II. 40-49, translation mine)
Okay, so maybe that was just the ranting of a crazy priest, right? Hindsight makes all prophecy seem true. But then Laocoon threw a spear against the horse, and what happened?
The hollows of struck belly resounded and the cavernous spaces gave forth a groan. (Aeneid II. 53-53)
All the Trojans within earshot could tell that the horse was hollow, and this at least made plausible Laocoon's suggestion that it could be hiding Greeks. But did they check for trouble, or did they follow the advice of Capys, who earlier had "ordered this trick of the Greeks, this suspicious gift, be hurled into the sea and set on fire or at least that the hollows of its belly be tested and tried" (Aeneid II. 36-39)? They did not.
Of course, these were just two cranks who could not be open and accepting of that which was different, right?
And then what happens? In frightening detail Vergil tells in lines 199-224 how twin sea serpents attack the shore and devour Laocoon and his sons. It is the imagery, however, that is worth noting. The serpents come from the direction of Tenedos, the island behind which the Greeks ships are actually hiding. Treachery from the direction where real treachery lies. Get it? Apparently the Trojans didn't. Furthermore, the serpents have red crests. Who else has red crests? Soldiers do. And how do they attack Laocoon? In line 212 Vergil uses the phrase agmine certo, in a fixed battle line.
So let's recap...serpents, a symbol of treachery, looking like soldiers with red crests and moving in a fashion remniscent of an army on the march attack from the direction of Tenedos where actual Greek ships are hiding. Does this cause anyone to stand up and take notice? Not one.
In fact, groups of young men and women dance and sing as the Trojans try to take the horse into the city. They have interpreted these horrific events as what Laocoon had coming to him. Here he was, an old curmudgeon unwilling to accept with an open mind this gift to the gods, so he got his thanks to the serpents.
Nevertheless, there is one more chance by which the Trojans could have averted this tragedy. Actually, there were four chances. In lines 242-243, Vergil writes, "Four times the horse stops at the very edge of the gate, four times the weapons gave forth a sound from the belly."
Yes, that's right, the Trojans actually heard the sounds of the Greeks and their weapons inside the horse, yet paid no attention and took the horse into the city.
As we are now finding out, the murderer at Ft. Hood had ties with a radical imam at the same mosque attended by three of the 9/11 hijackers. We had already found out, some months ago it would seem, that he had spoken openly anti-American sentiments and had posted online about the virtue of suicide bombing. This article quotes Sen. Joe Liberman (I-Conn.) Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who chairs the Senate Homeland Security committee, as telling Fox News Sunday that “there are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act.”
Selwyn Duke at American Thinker says this. "If there were an officer of Japanese descent in our military during WWII, he wouldn't have lasted til the next day's rising sun if he had expressed pro-Imperial Japanese sentiments."
So what has happened? There are many analyses going on right now about leftist this or politically correct that, and no doubt some of these thoughts are accurate. But I think Aeneas, speaking the words of Vergil, sums up our situation as he summed up the fate of the Trojans.
Instamus tamen immemores caecique furore. (Aeneid II.243)
We pressed on, nevertheless, paying no attention and blinded by madness.
Laocoon is the first of all to run down from the high citadel with a great crowd pressing around him and from far off he shouts, "What great insanity has you, miserable fellow-citizens of mine? Do you believe that the enemy has sailed away? Do you think that any gifts of the Greeks lack trickery? Was this what Ulysses was known for? There are either Greeks shut up in hiding within the wood of the horse or it is machine that has been made to threaten our walls, to spy into our homes and to come down into our city. Either that, or there is some other treachery hiding there. Do not trust the horse, Trojans. Whatever it is, I fear the Greeks, even those bringing gifts. (Aeneid II. 40-49, translation mine)
Okay, so maybe that was just the ranting of a crazy priest, right? Hindsight makes all prophecy seem true. But then Laocoon threw a spear against the horse, and what happened?
The hollows of struck belly resounded and the cavernous spaces gave forth a groan. (Aeneid II. 53-53)
All the Trojans within earshot could tell that the horse was hollow, and this at least made plausible Laocoon's suggestion that it could be hiding Greeks. But did they check for trouble, or did they follow the advice of Capys, who earlier had "ordered this trick of the Greeks, this suspicious gift, be hurled into the sea and set on fire or at least that the hollows of its belly be tested and tried" (Aeneid II. 36-39)? They did not.
Of course, these were just two cranks who could not be open and accepting of that which was different, right?
And then what happens? In frightening detail Vergil tells in lines 199-224 how twin sea serpents attack the shore and devour Laocoon and his sons. It is the imagery, however, that is worth noting. The serpents come from the direction of Tenedos, the island behind which the Greeks ships are actually hiding. Treachery from the direction where real treachery lies. Get it? Apparently the Trojans didn't. Furthermore, the serpents have red crests. Who else has red crests? Soldiers do. And how do they attack Laocoon? In line 212 Vergil uses the phrase agmine certo, in a fixed battle line.
So let's recap...serpents, a symbol of treachery, looking like soldiers with red crests and moving in a fashion remniscent of an army on the march attack from the direction of Tenedos where actual Greek ships are hiding. Does this cause anyone to stand up and take notice? Not one.
In fact, groups of young men and women dance and sing as the Trojans try to take the horse into the city. They have interpreted these horrific events as what Laocoon had coming to him. Here he was, an old curmudgeon unwilling to accept with an open mind this gift to the gods, so he got his thanks to the serpents.
Nevertheless, there is one more chance by which the Trojans could have averted this tragedy. Actually, there were four chances. In lines 242-243, Vergil writes, "Four times the horse stops at the very edge of the gate, four times the weapons gave forth a sound from the belly."
Yes, that's right, the Trojans actually heard the sounds of the Greeks and their weapons inside the horse, yet paid no attention and took the horse into the city.
As we are now finding out, the murderer at Ft. Hood had ties with a radical imam at the same mosque attended by three of the 9/11 hijackers. We had already found out, some months ago it would seem, that he had spoken openly anti-American sentiments and had posted online about the virtue of suicide bombing. This article quotes Sen. Joe Liberman (I-Conn.) Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who chairs the Senate Homeland Security committee, as telling Fox News Sunday that “there are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act.”
Selwyn Duke at American Thinker says this. "If there were an officer of Japanese descent in our military during WWII, he wouldn't have lasted til the next day's rising sun if he had expressed pro-Imperial Japanese sentiments."
So what has happened? There are many analyses going on right now about leftist this or politically correct that, and no doubt some of these thoughts are accurate. But I think Aeneas, speaking the words of Vergil, sums up our situation as he summed up the fate of the Trojans.
Instamus tamen immemores caecique furore. (Aeneid II.243)
We pressed on, nevertheless, paying no attention and blinded by madness.
Friday, November 6, 2009
A Warrior's Rage
As I watched the television reports last night about the tragedy at Ft. Hood, I could not help trying to think of any parallel or similar story from antiquity, whether in history or in literature. The closest I could come was the rage of Achilles with which the Iliad begins and which, in Pope's translation, was "to Greece the direful spring of woes unnumbered." Similar to the what has happened at Ft. Hood, there was a military officer who was grieved mightily over, among other things, the policies of his commander. His refusal to continue to fight resulted in the deaths of many of his comrades.
Yet this is a thin comparison. While attempts were made to bring Achilles back into the battle by suggesting that it would save Greek lives, under no stretch of the imagination could one say that Achilles murdered his brothers-in-arms as happened at Ft. Hood. Furthermore, if he had killed anyone, it would not have been those comrades, but rather the man with whom he had the actual conflict, his commander Agamamenon. Indeed, he considered this, for we read in Book I:
Distracting thoughts by turns his bosom ruled;
Now fired by wrath, and now by reason cool’d:
That prompts his hand to draw the deadly sword,
Force through the Greeks, and pierce their haughty lord;
This whispers soft his vengeance to control,
And calm the rising tempest of his soul.
Just as in anguish of suspense he stay’d,
While half unsheathed appear’d the glittering blade...
So what was it that turned Achilles to follow reason over wrath? It was divine intervention, literally. The goddess Athena spoke to him, and note his response:
To her Pelides:—“With regardful ear,
’Tis just, O goddess! I thy dictates hear.
Hard as it is, my vengeance I suppress:
Those who revere the gods the gods will bless.”
He said, observant of the blue-eyed maid;
Then in the sheath return’d the shining blade.
Achilles, although a fictional character, represents the true heroic character, which is never less than fully human by pretending to be something more. He has his passions and he has his reason, and there were times when they conflicted and the outcome could have gone either way. Yet reason won out, thanks to divine assistance. As a result, Achilles remains one of the greatest warriors ever dreamt by the mind of man, and his story continues to be told across the millennia and in every tongue. The insane acts of the Ft. Hood madman will doom him at best to the footnotes of a history text within a few generations, a twilight existence itself too good for such an act of perfidy.
Yet this is a thin comparison. While attempts were made to bring Achilles back into the battle by suggesting that it would save Greek lives, under no stretch of the imagination could one say that Achilles murdered his brothers-in-arms as happened at Ft. Hood. Furthermore, if he had killed anyone, it would not have been those comrades, but rather the man with whom he had the actual conflict, his commander Agamamenon. Indeed, he considered this, for we read in Book I:
Distracting thoughts by turns his bosom ruled;
Now fired by wrath, and now by reason cool’d:
That prompts his hand to draw the deadly sword,
Force through the Greeks, and pierce their haughty lord;
This whispers soft his vengeance to control,
And calm the rising tempest of his soul.
Just as in anguish of suspense he stay’d,
While half unsheathed appear’d the glittering blade...
So what was it that turned Achilles to follow reason over wrath? It was divine intervention, literally. The goddess Athena spoke to him, and note his response:
To her Pelides:—“With regardful ear,
’Tis just, O goddess! I thy dictates hear.
Hard as it is, my vengeance I suppress:
Those who revere the gods the gods will bless.”
He said, observant of the blue-eyed maid;
Then in the sheath return’d the shining blade.
Achilles, although a fictional character, represents the true heroic character, which is never less than fully human by pretending to be something more. He has his passions and he has his reason, and there were times when they conflicted and the outcome could have gone either way. Yet reason won out, thanks to divine assistance. As a result, Achilles remains one of the greatest warriors ever dreamt by the mind of man, and his story continues to be told across the millennia and in every tongue. The insane acts of the Ft. Hood madman will doom him at best to the footnotes of a history text within a few generations, a twilight existence itself too good for such an act of perfidy.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Lying Parents
I have never understood the rationale that prompts parents to lie on behalf of and in front of their children. A CNN article on children and social networking has more alarming information than just the expected statistics on teen and pre-teen use of such sites.
Says Marc Bigbie, a software salesman, about his children and their use of Facebook, "'It was kind of a negative thing at first,' he said. 'We kind of took it away from her. But, finally, we said, "You can have it, but we need the password so we can be on there at any time."'
Since then, all three of the kids have gotten Facebook accounts, with their parents even agreeing to fudge their ages."
First of all, the absurdly qualified expression "kind of a negative thing" leads to complete absurdity in the expression "kind of took it away from her." Either they took it away from her, or they did not. Obviously, they did not.
What is disheartening is the admission that the parents helped their children lie about their age in order to get an account. I must assume they will also help their children get fake i.d.'s when the time comes, say around age 15.
I have known parents who will call their students in sick at school, even when the students have told me the previous day that their families were going on vacation. My response has always been, "Tell the truth and take the consequences." I don't think anyone has ever taken my advice or the consequences.
Many years ago I had to attend a church conference, but was out of personal days. I could have taken a sick day, but that would have been wrong. So I took the day without pay. Now, it is true that teachers do not get paid all that much, but what we get paid, we need. This was the price for honesty, but it was a price I could not help but pay.
When I was growing up, my father would always check the bill at a restaurant before paying it. Not infrequently, it would be figured wrong and in our favor. He always reported the error and paid what was due. Of course this was not surprising from a man who, though courting my mother in the free-wheeling 1960's, nevertheless insisted that she leave her apartment door open a bit when he took her home, lest there be an appearance of impropriety.
I am not sure there is a social network in cyberspace that can teach lessons like that.
Says Marc Bigbie, a software salesman, about his children and their use of Facebook, "'It was kind of a negative thing at first,' he said. 'We kind of took it away from her. But, finally, we said, "You can have it, but we need the password so we can be on there at any time."'
Since then, all three of the kids have gotten Facebook accounts, with their parents even agreeing to fudge their ages."
First of all, the absurdly qualified expression "kind of a negative thing" leads to complete absurdity in the expression "kind of took it away from her." Either they took it away from her, or they did not. Obviously, they did not.
What is disheartening is the admission that the parents helped their children lie about their age in order to get an account. I must assume they will also help their children get fake i.d.'s when the time comes, say around age 15.
I have known parents who will call their students in sick at school, even when the students have told me the previous day that their families were going on vacation. My response has always been, "Tell the truth and take the consequences." I don't think anyone has ever taken my advice or the consequences.
Many years ago I had to attend a church conference, but was out of personal days. I could have taken a sick day, but that would have been wrong. So I took the day without pay. Now, it is true that teachers do not get paid all that much, but what we get paid, we need. This was the price for honesty, but it was a price I could not help but pay.
When I was growing up, my father would always check the bill at a restaurant before paying it. Not infrequently, it would be figured wrong and in our favor. He always reported the error and paid what was due. Of course this was not surprising from a man who, though courting my mother in the free-wheeling 1960's, nevertheless insisted that she leave her apartment door open a bit when he took her home, lest there be an appearance of impropriety.
I am not sure there is a social network in cyberspace that can teach lessons like that.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Kingdoms, Clocks, and Saying "No"
The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. So if you worship me, it will all be yours." (Luke 4:5-7, NIV)
Never in the history of the world has the average person come closer to being in this place of temptation to which Jesus was led. The world is indeed our oyster. Everything is at our fingertips. With a tiny, rectangular piece of plastic I can buy it all. With the speed of the Internet and daily transportation, I can see and do it all. Forget former First Lady Nancy Reagan and her slogan of "Just Say No." I'm too busy saying "Yes!"
Of course, even I must obey some rules, such as the linear progression of time. If I want to purchase a DVD, read a book, go to church, post on my blog, spend time with my children, care for my house, pray, research a project, do my job, respond to a friend, work on a manuscript, return a phone call, answer an email, watch TV, engage my hobby, serve the poor, and whatever else beckons like a Siren for my attention, I must choose which I will do first, second, and thirty-fifth.
Fortunately, the demons that seduce and tempt me to unending activity are only too happy to provide me with the tools with which to ensnare myself. I have at my disposal a dizzying array of small, electronic devices with which to keep track of my life, on top of calendars, daily planners, and good old-fashioned lists. While some of these can sync with my computer or my phone, all are in sync with the great chronometers that rule our lives, the ubiquitous clocks.
It is stunning to realize that our railing against such a divided and ordered life is nothing new. It has been going on since the earliest of such technologies, the sundial. Aulus Gellius in his Attic Nights attributed the following to the Roman playwright Plautus (254-184 B.C.):
ut illum di perdant, primus qui horas repperit,
quique adeo primus statuit hic solarium,
qui mihi conminuit misero articulatim diem! (Atticae Noctes 3.3.5)
Oh, that the gods would damn him, who first discovered hours,
Who first set up a sundial here,
Who shattered the day minute by minute for poor me!
Catullus (84-54 B.C.) lamented that leisure was his downfall. Now, he was in the throes of lovesickness at the time, bemoaning his fate of being infatuated with a woman who, at the moment, did not know he existed, thus making his leisure hours of watching her from afar pure torture. Yet listen to these closing lines of Carmen 51 and see if they do not sound achingly modern, but for a far different reason.
otium, Catulle, tibi molestumst:
otio exultas nimiumque gestis:
otium et reges prius et beatas
perdidit urbes.
Leisure is worrisome to you, Catullus,
You exalt and cavort in leisure too much.
In the past leisure has destroyed kings
And wealthy cities.
How often is leisure a worrisome wrestling of deciding what to do next, if only because we have absolutely everything as a live option?
Never have so many of us needed to hear the words of Jesus from Matthew 11:28. "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest." (NIV) The verb in Greek for "I will give you rest" is anapauso, literally meaning, "I shall stop you again." For those of us who suffer from the chronic (think about the etymology of that word) disease so gleefully sung about by Ado Annie in Oklahoma, for those of us who "who cain't say no," we desperately need a Lord who will stop us again, one who will restore the fragments of our days shattered by silicon sundials, and who will help us stand against the temptations of the kingdoms.
Never in the history of the world has the average person come closer to being in this place of temptation to which Jesus was led. The world is indeed our oyster. Everything is at our fingertips. With a tiny, rectangular piece of plastic I can buy it all. With the speed of the Internet and daily transportation, I can see and do it all. Forget former First Lady Nancy Reagan and her slogan of "Just Say No." I'm too busy saying "Yes!"
Of course, even I must obey some rules, such as the linear progression of time. If I want to purchase a DVD, read a book, go to church, post on my blog, spend time with my children, care for my house, pray, research a project, do my job, respond to a friend, work on a manuscript, return a phone call, answer an email, watch TV, engage my hobby, serve the poor, and whatever else beckons like a Siren for my attention, I must choose which I will do first, second, and thirty-fifth.
Fortunately, the demons that seduce and tempt me to unending activity are only too happy to provide me with the tools with which to ensnare myself. I have at my disposal a dizzying array of small, electronic devices with which to keep track of my life, on top of calendars, daily planners, and good old-fashioned lists. While some of these can sync with my computer or my phone, all are in sync with the great chronometers that rule our lives, the ubiquitous clocks.
It is stunning to realize that our railing against such a divided and ordered life is nothing new. It has been going on since the earliest of such technologies, the sundial. Aulus Gellius in his Attic Nights attributed the following to the Roman playwright Plautus (254-184 B.C.):
ut illum di perdant, primus qui horas repperit,
quique adeo primus statuit hic solarium,
qui mihi conminuit misero articulatim diem! (Atticae Noctes 3.3.5)
Oh, that the gods would damn him, who first discovered hours,
Who first set up a sundial here,
Who shattered the day minute by minute for poor me!
Catullus (84-54 B.C.) lamented that leisure was his downfall. Now, he was in the throes of lovesickness at the time, bemoaning his fate of being infatuated with a woman who, at the moment, did not know he existed, thus making his leisure hours of watching her from afar pure torture. Yet listen to these closing lines of Carmen 51 and see if they do not sound achingly modern, but for a far different reason.
otium, Catulle, tibi molestumst:
otio exultas nimiumque gestis:
otium et reges prius et beatas
perdidit urbes.
Leisure is worrisome to you, Catullus,
You exalt and cavort in leisure too much.
In the past leisure has destroyed kings
And wealthy cities.
How often is leisure a worrisome wrestling of deciding what to do next, if only because we have absolutely everything as a live option?
Never have so many of us needed to hear the words of Jesus from Matthew 11:28. "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest." (NIV) The verb in Greek for "I will give you rest" is anapauso, literally meaning, "I shall stop you again." For those of us who suffer from the chronic (think about the etymology of that word) disease so gleefully sung about by Ado Annie in Oklahoma, for those of us who "who cain't say no," we desperately need a Lord who will stop us again, one who will restore the fragments of our days shattered by silicon sundials, and who will help us stand against the temptations of the kingdoms.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Hate Crimes-Thought Crimes
Yesterday President Obama signed the much-anticipated hate crimes legislation, which was attached to a defense authorization bill. President Obama said at the signing ceremony, "No one in America should ever be afraid to walk down the street holding the hands of the person they love. No one in America should be forced to look over their shoulder because of who they are or because they live with a disability."
I agree. No one should live in fear of being physically assaulted or murdered for any reason.
Yet he also said, "After more than a decade of opposition and delay, we've passed inclusive hate crimes legislation to help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray, or who they are."
I do not understand the purpose of the last clause in that statement. He says, "After more than a decade of opposition and delay, we've passed inclusive hate crimes legislation to help protect our citizens from violence based on ... who they are." The argument has been made countless times, but apparently lawmakers do not find it convincing, perhaps because it is based on fact and logic, but the argument has rightly been made that we already have such legislation. We have not waited for more than a decade to produce legislation to protect U.S. citizens from violence based on who they are. With the very first law that was ever created in this nation that protected anyone from any kind of violence, citizens were at that moment protected from violence based on who they are. The reason? ALL VIOLENCE against Person A is based on who Person A is. The rapist does not rape the woman because he thinks she is a cantaloupe. He rapes her because of who she is, a woman. The mugger does not rob the frail, elderly person at the grocery store because he thinks the man will fight back with well-honed, ninja-like abilities. The mugger attacks such a victim because of who he is, a weakened target not likely to resist. The anti-Semite attacks the Jew because the Jew is a Jew.
As has been so often said, all violence is a hate crime. Has anyone ever seriously said, "I am murdering you now because I love you"?
The law must deal with the facts that can be proven in court. How can one prove what was in another person's mind? And ultimately, for our courts of law, what does it matter? Person A is dead, and Person B killed him. Person B must be punished for the act, not whatever motivated him to do it. God alone knows what is in a person's heart, and it is for crimes of the heart that God alone can punish.
I agree. No one should live in fear of being physically assaulted or murdered for any reason.
Yet he also said, "After more than a decade of opposition and delay, we've passed inclusive hate crimes legislation to help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray, or who they are."
I do not understand the purpose of the last clause in that statement. He says, "After more than a decade of opposition and delay, we've passed inclusive hate crimes legislation to help protect our citizens from violence based on ... who they are." The argument has been made countless times, but apparently lawmakers do not find it convincing, perhaps because it is based on fact and logic, but the argument has rightly been made that we already have such legislation. We have not waited for more than a decade to produce legislation to protect U.S. citizens from violence based on who they are. With the very first law that was ever created in this nation that protected anyone from any kind of violence, citizens were at that moment protected from violence based on who they are. The reason? ALL VIOLENCE against Person A is based on who Person A is. The rapist does not rape the woman because he thinks she is a cantaloupe. He rapes her because of who she is, a woman. The mugger does not rob the frail, elderly person at the grocery store because he thinks the man will fight back with well-honed, ninja-like abilities. The mugger attacks such a victim because of who he is, a weakened target not likely to resist. The anti-Semite attacks the Jew because the Jew is a Jew.
As has been so often said, all violence is a hate crime. Has anyone ever seriously said, "I am murdering you now because I love you"?
The law must deal with the facts that can be proven in court. How can one prove what was in another person's mind? And ultimately, for our courts of law, what does it matter? Person A is dead, and Person B killed him. Person B must be punished for the act, not whatever motivated him to do it. God alone knows what is in a person's heart, and it is for crimes of the heart that God alone can punish.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
False Analogy
Red Cardigan at And Sometimes Tea put out an excellent discussion of a flawed article at the New York Times. The NYT pieces tries to advance an argument that the press has been too kind in dealing with Catholic Church over the recent welcome she has extended to traditional Anglicans. I leave it to Red to discuss the foolishness of this. What I want to address is the flawed foundation of the argument found in the NYT article, an argument based on an analogy with Wal-Mart. Following is my reply on the NYT site.
Dear Mr. Cohen,
I agree that religion does not need to be handled with kid gloves. Truth, if it be true, has nothing to fear from honest discussion, debate, and dialogue. If person A asks a question of person B in a genuine attempt to discover something, then person B need not fear, even if the question person A asks is difficult. Likewise, person A should not claim to have scored a point in some sort of intellectual tennis match if person B does not have an immediate answer, but agrees to pursue the issue further.
That said, I do not think your opening analogy holds up. You write, "If a secular institution, Wal-Mart or Microsoft, for example, made a similar offer — Tired of leadership positions being open to women and gay employees? Join us! — it would be slammed for appealing to bigotry." While this is accurate, I do not see what it has to do with the issue at hand. The analogy is based on the assumption that a secular institution and a divine institution are sufficiently alike to allow such a comparison. Regarding the Church, this is simply not the case. Christians believe that the Church is the body of Christ on earth. From such language and understanding alone it can be seen that we are talking about an inherently different sort of institution from Wal-Mart. To miss this is to make the same mistake that certain followers of Jesus did when they misunderstood his talk about a kingdom. Some incorrectly assumed he was talking about a temporal kingdom that would follow the overthrow of the Romans, but he was talking about something else entirely.
You may want to challenge the root understanding of what "church" means, and this is indeed an area of theological pursuit. What you cannot do is assume an understanding of a term that is different from those who have defined it, and then use that term as the foundation for an argument against those very people.
Dear Mr. Cohen,
I agree that religion does not need to be handled with kid gloves. Truth, if it be true, has nothing to fear from honest discussion, debate, and dialogue. If person A asks a question of person B in a genuine attempt to discover something, then person B need not fear, even if the question person A asks is difficult. Likewise, person A should not claim to have scored a point in some sort of intellectual tennis match if person B does not have an immediate answer, but agrees to pursue the issue further.
That said, I do not think your opening analogy holds up. You write, "If a secular institution, Wal-Mart or Microsoft, for example, made a similar offer — Tired of leadership positions being open to women and gay employees? Join us! — it would be slammed for appealing to bigotry." While this is accurate, I do not see what it has to do with the issue at hand. The analogy is based on the assumption that a secular institution and a divine institution are sufficiently alike to allow such a comparison. Regarding the Church, this is simply not the case. Christians believe that the Church is the body of Christ on earth. From such language and understanding alone it can be seen that we are talking about an inherently different sort of institution from Wal-Mart. To miss this is to make the same mistake that certain followers of Jesus did when they misunderstood his talk about a kingdom. Some incorrectly assumed he was talking about a temporal kingdom that would follow the overthrow of the Romans, but he was talking about something else entirely.
You may want to challenge the root understanding of what "church" means, and this is indeed an area of theological pursuit. What you cannot do is assume an understanding of a term that is different from those who have defined it, and then use that term as the foundation for an argument against those very people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
