à la mode de les Muses

Thoughts on Amos

2012-02-04T10:49:00.000-08:00

Piecing together the histories of lost cultures must be grueling work for archeologists and historians of antiquity. The downside to this is that, when it comes to interpreting brief Bible passages, there might not be enough external evidence to make sense of what’s being said. Recently, I returned to the prophet Amos because one passage had puzzled me during my reading last year.

Chapter 9 is a warning to the people of Israel about their destruction and subsequent restoration. When God compares the people of Israel to the other nations (9:7), the commonality appears not to be sin (as in multiple other passages) but deliverance. The reference to the Cushites might be vague, but there’s an obvious parallel among the others: God brought out Israelites from Egypt, the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians (or Arameans) from Kir.

If the wording was forward-looking, then the verse might be read as a prediction of what would come: all unbelieving nations turning to the Israelites’ true God. However, instead, it’s historical, reminding the Israelites not only of their own captivity and exodus but also those of known adversaries. I’m unsure what to make of this. Is Amos saying that God led other people in the same way He did the Israelites? Maybe Christians often make a poor assumption that, if Israelites are God’s “Chosen People” from whom the Messiah would come, God couldn’t have led other groups in a similar way. However, other passages in Scripture, such as those in Genesis and Judges, make it clear that there were other nations with knowledge of the true God and non-Israelites who communicated with Him. Maybe the Philistines and Arameans didn’t receive the Law or witness the Advent, but I do wonder what their missing histories would’ve told us.

What’s In a Hebrew Name?

2012-01-12T16:05:00.000-08:00

Last week, I signed up for a Beginning Modern Hebrew course offered locally by HaDavar Messianic Ministries. The first meeting was devoted to becoming familiar with the Hebrew letters, different scripts, and some basic conversational phrases. We students had to introduce ourselves to each other in Hebrew, and the instructor Racheli Morris made a point of asking who had a “Hebrew name” (e.g., Mary, Judith), using that as a learning tool for pronunciation it seems. Later, she talked to us about her Jewish background and her experience as a teacher in Israel and the United States. She mentioned how inspired she had been throughout her life by the life of Jacob’s wife Rachel in the Bible. It was as if she saw herself having a special connection with her namesake much in the way Roman Catholics have with their nameday saints.

Sitting there in class, something occurred to me. Technically, I have a “Hebrew name.” My middle name is “Annette,” a variant of “Hannah” (i.e., “grace”). I admire many women in the Bible and Apocrypha (e.g., Tamar the first, Rahab, Abigail, Susannah), but it hadn’t occurred to me that, since a child, I’ve especially admired Samuel’s mother Hannah (I Samuel 1). Childless in a culture that valued women primarily by their childbearing capabilities, she was living in a polygynous marriage with a rival who knew how to hit where it hurt most. She knew that the solution to her problem was not “being content in the Lord,” but having a child. She ignored her husband Elkanah, who had tried to tell her to get her priorities straight. She put up a stunning defense against Eli, a priest at Shiloh, who had attacked her character. She knew what she wanted and that it wasn’t wrong it want it. And when she petitioned the Lord for it, He granted it to her.

I don’t believe there’s some sort of spiritual connection between Hannah in the Bible and me, not any more than I believe that there’s one between Saint Anne, the reputed mother of the Virgin Mary, and me. However, now I do think of my name and remember Hannah’s story and its important lesson: God can give you your heart’s desire, even when those in authority wish to think you selfish, unreasonable, and even morally wrong.

A Universal Embrace

2011-12-15T08:51:00.000-08:00

“This is what I like about Americans,” is what I think my student said between sniffles. I had just offered her a hug after she broke down crying. She accepted and then proceeded to tell me what I’d heard a number of times before: that Vietnamese culture doesn’t allow for that sort of comforting. She appreciated my willingness to do what she said people close to her refuse to do.

For a “huggy” person like myself, it’s often hard to imagine what life is like in a society where physical contact is kept down to a minimum, even between parents and children, even when someone is experiencing emotional trauma. We’re so concerned about those living in developing nations with inadequate food supplies, poor water quality, and substandard health care. Yet there are people, not just orphans, that seem to be suffering from a prolonged oxytocin deficiency that is easily curable, relatively speaking.

I’m not saying that Asian cultures that respect the individual’s personal space have no value. (If I did, I wouldn’t have spent so many undergraduate years studying the historic Chinese American community.) However, I do question whether or not they provide a healthy environment, especially when so many women – even older ones – I’ve met have voiced dissatisfaction with it.

This is final exam week, so my student will be off to Vietnam soon to be with her family over break. Will she tell them how she feels? I don’t know. If she did, would they hug her and let her cry on their shoulder, as she seemed eager to do with me? I don’t think so. And when I remember the look of loneliness in the girl’s eyes, I worry…a lot. She’s literally starving, and like with anorexia, too many people believe it’s a good thing.

11111

2011-12-02T13:59:00.000-08:00

I decided to commemorate 4:59 AM on Friday, December 2, 2011 by sleeping in. It’s been a tough week dealing with cheating students. I’m not looking forward to seeing any of them on Monday.

Thoughts on Numbers

2011-11-27T23:34:00.000-08:00

“Hills of Gilead” (David Bjorgen, Wikipedia)

Most Christians don’t like the idea of a God who’s flexible, sometimes letting believers have their way. In fact, it’s a favorite pastime of church leaders to frighten people out of doing anything for fear that it might conflict with “God’s will.” (Apparently, they believe it’s super easy for people to mess up and prevent God from getting His way). Instead they assume that God sets a highly detailed, fixed, permanent seventy-year plan for the average individual, and any attempt by the said individual to make modifications constitutes damnable sin.

Reading Numbers has always been a bit of a chore, even for someone like me who worked as a demographer, analyzing census data. What stood out to me this time around was how Moses, or God for that matter, responded to the Reubenites and Gadites’ request to settle in Gilead instead of the “Promised Land” of Canaan (ch. 32). The people of these tribes cared about their economic prospects and asked that their shares of Canaan be exchanged for shares of land more suitable for livestock.

The request initially upset Moses. He was afraid that losing the fighting strength of Reuben and Gad. Weaker numbers in battle would discourage everyone, jeopardizing the other tribes’ chance to inherit Canaan. When the shepherds promised not to abandon their brothers in their conquest, Moses approved their request and even let one half-tribe of Manasseh join the Transjordan settlement.

What struck me about this passage is how Moses never lectured these tribes into accepting what they really didn’t want. If he were a typical preacher today, we might expect a sermon about how greedy people are for asking for what they want rather than being satisfied with what God has already given them. We’d also expect the before mentioned warnings about crossing God’s plans by zealously seeking anything more in life.

Although I’m not settled on the matter, I wonder why Christians are discouraged from petitioning for whatever they want in life and from actively pursuing those things. No doubt there will be disappointments and failures, and God rejecting sinful requests shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone (James 4:3). But this passage in Numbers makes for a good case study: God wants us to make requests (Matthew 21:22, 1 John 3:21-22), and He enjoys fulfilling them because He enjoys seeing us happy (Matthew 7:11, Luke 11:13).

The Shameless Search for Lesbian Martyrs of the Homeschool Movement

2011-11-25T09:23:00.000-08:00

I was nineteen years old when I first discovered people’s eagerness to gain from others’ sexual orientation. A fellow college student, Mr. Popular concluded that I was “gay” because that was the only logical explanation his conceited self could make for my disinterest in him. Ms. Social Butterfly was the only friend – now former friend – who believed there was enough corroborating evidence for the rumor. She wanted to be compassionate by publicly accepting me. But she had an ulterior motive too: Having a lesbian friend would complete her social circle and make her appear more open-minded. A couple years later, Ms. Black Woman Power, whom I only knew by sight, persisted in believing that I was dating my sister, despite the constant refutation of other students. She was too busy celebrating black women’s independence. Facts and others’ feelings took second place to her socio-political goals.

One thing that all three of these experiences had in common: The primary instigator can be generally described as Christian. In other words, Christians were perfectly willing to use others’ real or imagined homosexuality to further their own ends. I reached this conclusion years later after seeing more of that nonsense in the “secular world” with non-Christians and genuine homosexuals. The script was very similar. Use someone else’s deviant sexuality to boost your public image.

So a few years ago, I was not surprised when a (married) survivor of the Quiverfull Movement and anti-homeschool activist began hinting that the key to resolving my singleness would be to enter a lesbian relationship. She wasn’t interested in hearing me deny being attracted to women. She didn’t care about my theological views on the topic. What she did care about was destroying conservative Christian homeschooling by having its key product (i.e., patriarchal-minded women) fail.

The conservative Christian homeschooling movement is infamous for declaring all men unmarriageable but a select few, leaving hundreds of women waiting decades for a non-existent perfect husband. A few concerned homeschool graduates had predicted that an epidemic of lesbianism would result, but to my knowledge no cases had been actually found. (Homosexual homeschool graduates tend to be from less religious or non-religious homes.) So someone decided to create one. The suggestion sickened me for a number of reasons, but primarily due to the realization that someone wanted to use my disappointments in life to further a personal cause against Christian homeschooling. I wonder how many homeschool girls are being used this way…for the good of the movement.

Is the King James Version Only Crowd Causing Others to Sin?

2011-11-22T12:57:00.000-08:00

“Frontispiece to the King James’ Bible, 1611” (Wikipedia)

Because of my economics course assignments, I rarely get a chance to cover market structure, but when I do, one of my favorite monopoly examples to use is the British Crown’s perpetual copyright over the Authorized Version of the Bible (i.e., the King James Version). Needless to say, American rebels fighting against the Crown during the American Revolution really didn’t care about going through the appropriate legal channels for printing political tracts, let alone Bibles. Today, some effort is usually made to follow the copyright restrictions of American publishers when using and copying the text, however few people know or care about the Crown’s claim.

Unless you own a copy made by an approved printer, like Oxford or Cambridge, then you’re pretty much an accomplice in stealing. No, you’re not committing a crime here in the United States. From the perspective of our Federal government, the text has been in public domain for years. However, the interests of the owners have been pushed aside by our government. You might argue that your use of the KJV is solely for honorable purposes. You might claim “fair use,” but keep in mind that American publishers are selling the text, whether for profit or not.

You could argue that God’s Word can’t be owned. How convenient! Deny people right to their product, developed through years of people’s studying, copying, translating, and so on. This argument creates a problem for any human output. Why? Because it implies that there can’t be property rights over anything produced with God’s raw materials (i.e., any and all natural resources). Yes, many political conservatives, libertarians, and anarchists have argued against protecting intellectual property. Although I agree that the patent system has been corrupt and inefficient, I rarely give credence to claims that copyrights or patents are inherently wrong. They usually just echo the weak arguments calling for the abolition of physical property. In addition, the movement is filled with hypocrites who file or declare copyrights (even on Facebook profiles) or utilize Creative Commons, in attempt to limit other people’s infringement on “their” property. The whole situation just stinks of covetous protestors trying to get their greedy hands on other people’s stuff.

The fact remains that millions of American Christians possess illegitimate copies of the King James Bible. Worse, the “King James Only” movement encourages this. Americans are encouraged to purchase these unauthorized Authorized Bibles, due to some belief that reading any other English translation, even one based on the same Hebrew and Greek manuscripts or translated with the same ecclesiastical biases, is immoral. Adherents then patronize publishers who are essentially stealing from the British Crown. Any way you look at it, disagreements over politics and religion doesn’t make something any less of a sin. There’s to be one law for believer and unbeliever. I challenge the “King James Only” crowd and their leaders to take responsibility. They should denounce the purchase of unauthorized copies. Maybe they should consider burning them, since they probably are an abomination in the sight of God. Anything less would be collaborating with the Evil One.

Thoughts on Mark

2011-11-08T15:38:00.000-08:00

When it comes to charity, there are generally two prevailing, conflicting thoughts on the issue: we have to obey the Scriptures by giving freely and generously, but we also must be “good stewards” of our resources, discriminating between worthy and unworthy causes. The result is bitter disputes among Christians, trying to figure out what’s required of them. Should we tithe or donate to a “Christian” organization whose leadership commits terrible offenses? Should we actively prevent others from doing so? That could make things bloody! I don’t have a good answer, but I’d like to cite a case before more Christians render their judgments.

A few months ago, I tackled the Gospel of Mark (assumed to be the Apostle Peter’s perspective) and was startled by a familiar story: “The Widow’s Offering” (12:41-44). I’ve heard about the widow who gave all she had since I was four years old. I’d read the story in and out of context a million times. Yet, something struck me as rather odd: this woman gave money to an apostate temple!

Consider the broader context: After His triumphant entry into Jerusalem, Jesus Christ cleanses the temple, calling the priests and their staff of money-changers “robbers” (11:15-19). Then He continues to tell off the religious authorities in chapters 11 and 12. Jesus even warns that they parade around for the benefits while breaking the commandments to care for widows (12:38-40). After observing the generous widow, Christ then informs His disciples that the pretty-looking Herodian temple they were gushing over would be destroyed (13:1-2).

Now consider what would’ve happened today: Christians publically denounce churches and para-church organizations for not staying true to biblical doctrine. And anyone who’d dare render a tithe, offering, or donation would be chided or even harassed for their decisions to give. But Jesus Christ didn’t even try to stop the widow from giving all she had to the Lord, even though the earthly benefactors were those he constantly denounced. Maybe the heart of the one doing the supporting really does matter more than who gets supported.

Diamond Blues

2011-11-05T15:46:00.000-07:00

From about age 6 to 8, I had the misfortune of being forced to play softball. “Children’s Church” during evening service was made up of nearly all boys. I guess the parents of the girls I’d see Sunday morning weren’t as faithful attenders in the evening as my parents were. Most of the time, the teacher, was either unprepared to give us a lesson or just didn’t have enough backbone to say no to the preacher’s and elders’ sons. So, as long as it was light outside, we played softball.

I hated it with a passion. I was afraid of the ball. I couldn’t see it coming, so I never hit it, even when “Coach” (what we had to call the teacher) tossed it up in the air in front of me. He tried very hard to get me a hit, but it never happened. I’d drop the bat and duck, much to the disgust of my “teammates.” On my lucky days, I swung and missed. To make things worse, I literally threw like a girl, bringing down laughter and ridicule upon myself whenever I made any effort. And no one bothered to explain the rules to me, so I walked even when I struck out.

The parking lot was not the great equalizer. It merely unflavored me, the girl who’d never watched baseball, while favoring the roughhousing boys. Worse, while inside I could keep up with the older kids, singing praise songs, memorizing Bible verses, and playing games, outside I was picked on, even by boys younger than me. I was friendless and absolutely miserable.

Then one evening, we were playing softball. As usual, “Coach” was pitching. One of the older boys who I’d always admired was the catcher. One by one, different boys went up to bat. I recall someone hitting a “homerun” that required awhile for someone to retrieve the ball. It seemed like hours to me.

At some point, I was up to bat. I’d been practicing. I was determined to hit the ball. “Coach” was encouraging me. Everyone was cheering me on, even whoever was the “Manager” who got stuck picking me that day. Everyone was rooting for me! Me, the girl who couldn’t hit the ball to save her life!

The adrenalin was rushing through my body. I was going to hit it!

I stood ready to swing.

“Coach” threw the pitch.

WHAM!!!

Everything was silent. I remember looking up. I remember the catcher’s horrified face. I remember “Coach” fumbling with words.

I was in shock. HOW COULD HE HAVE HIT ME?!!! I had trusted him so much. For two years, he and all the male hoodlums had chided me for ducking. And now, I had a bruised head.

I didn’t cry. Maybe I was too afraid to.

I was walked.

If I hadn’t been a shy, obedient, intimidated girl, I would’ve screamed all evening. If I’d known what suing was, I would’ve threatened to take them all to court. Thinking back, I’m not sure if “Coach” told my parents about it. (When I’ve mentioned it, they don’t seem to even recall us playing softball, but this was a long time ago.)

I do recall one thing. I was never forced to play softball again.

Thoughts on II Samuel

2011-10-28T17:26:00.000-07:00

The second half of the Book of Samuel is usually thought of as the story of King David’s reign over Israel. I’d never really thought about how it might provide some insight as to how Christians are supposed to behave. However, when I reread it earlier this year, something stood out to me. We’re presented with a number of stories that feature individuals giving and taking of advice: Good council. Bad council. Subjects reasoning with superiors. Women reasoning with men. The stories highlight how sympathy, inflated egos, desire for peace, desire for revenge, and imperfect and incomplete knowledge about the situations at hand can render desirable or undesirable results.

The women of II Samuel give good advice, yet in one case it’s not accepted. That’s the lot of Tamar, David’s daughter, as she tries to prevent her half-brother Amnon from raping her. Despite his love for her, Amnon ignores her warnings and suggestions (ch. 13). David didn’t love the wise woman who appealed to him, yet he listened to her even though he saw right through her story (ch. 14). The wise woman of Abel-Beth-Maacah was to be an insignificant war casualty, but despite her boldness, Joab listened to her (ch. 20). Amnon, however, makes for a strange case in that his regard for his sister in no way prevented him from violating her. And in the end, perhaps because of a guilty conscience or bruised ego caused by her rejection of him, he begins to hate her.

I can identify with Amnon in the sense that my humiliation can easily breed contempt for those who’ve witnessed it. But what’s interesting about his response is the Septuagint translators’ use what most of us consider extremes: ἀγαπάω (agapeo, “to love”) and μισέω (miseo, “to hate”). (The forms specifically used in the Greek are ἠγάπησεν, ἀγαπῶ, ἀγάπην in vv. 1, 4, and 15 and ἐμίσησεν and μῖσος in v. 15.) These are exactly the same words used to contrast God’s conduct toward Jacob and Esau, by Paul in Romans 9:13 (ἠγάπησα and ἐμίσησα in the Nestlé-Aland 26) and by Malachi in 1:2 (ἠγάπησα in the LXX). In no way do I mean to suggest that “love” and “hate” can’t each have a variety of meanings, but that that the words, as used in other Bible passages contextualize Amnon’s radical change in feelings.

For Christians, “love” and “hatred” are extremely powerful words, used throughout both the Old and New Testments. God is a great hater of our sin, but our salvation is made possible by God’s great love for us (e.g., John 3:16). It’s amazing to think that someone might love someone else so completely and yet still turn against them. We are repeatedly told not to hate but to love each other, and this becomes a lesson on changing our attitudes about those we already have ill feelings towards, such as our enemies (e.g., ἀγαπᾶτε and μισοῦσιν in Luke 6:27). However, I’m beginning to realize how important it is to protect those we love from our hatred also. That might be the point behind Colossians 3:19 & 21, which tells husbands not to be harsh with their wives and fathers not to provoke their children. A man might deeply love his family, but that love won’t necessarily stop him from hurting them physically or emotionally. Amnon, despite being one of the most unpopular Bible characters, can serve as a constant reminder that those we love are also in danger of being hated by us.

Social Security Reform…Through Student Loan Reform?

2011-10-27T17:55:00.000-07:00

Raise your hand if you’ve ever looked at your paycheck stub and let out a groan. Social Security payroll withholdings are so depressing. We can’t spend the money on food, rent, and car payments now. We can’t borrow from this imaginary life savings account and repay it later. Worse yet, we’re coerced into contributing to the common pot with no guarantee that we’ll ever have a chance to eat from it.

The mainstream view of Social Security seems to be that it’s been a tremendous flop. Beneficiaries are living longer than they imagined as youths, collecting more than they initially contributed. The Federal government is tempted to use designated funds for other welfare projects, an action which, if committed by a non-profit organization, could result in serious legal trouble. With a track record like that, it’s no wonder that the current labor force generally distrusts the system. Americans constantly are told to take charge of their retirement savings with the expectation that Social Security won’t be around much longer.

Try as some may, no movement to eliminate or privatize Social Security has been successful. Legislators are reluctant to change, obviously because senior citizens and near-retirees make up the largest voting demographics. Stop collecting the Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax, and who’ll feed the “Baby-Boomers” who’ve contributed so faithfully to the cause? Yes, we might agree that the system is overdue on a major structural overhaul, but we need a feasible solution…that is, one that doesn’t cost anything to our elders who rule the voting booth.

As of now, what does the younger generation of workers do in face of a pending Social Security crisis? Work. Pay necessities. Repay college loans. Try and fail to save privately for retirement. And continue to pay for someone else’s retirement. No wonder most give up and party instead. No wonder few are interested in settling down and raising a family. Something must be done.

My suggestion? Allow one particular deduction from future payouts: student loans. Right now, “Gen-Xers” are too busy scrambling to pay for their post-secondary education to save for their own retirement. Eliminate that atrociously large debt burden that’s squishing a significant percentage of the young working population, but don’t change their tax contributions. Workers would be free to begin saving privately earlier. Retirees won’t feel threatened by a loss of payments.

I do recognize that the system can’t be changed overnight. This would require some serious coordination among the Department of Education, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Social Security Administration (SSA), and possibly other government agencies. And the Federal government, like private creditors, isn’t going to jump at a chance to lose interest payments on loans. However, as a potential means for Social Security reform, I think that it might have some promise.

Thoughts on 1 Corinthians

2011-10-20T16:59:00.000-07:00

Involuntary celibacy is on the rise. No one wants to do anything about it except advocate waiting, and waiting is a grossly inadequate policy rule. As I write this post, hundreds – thousands? millions? – of never-married believers are suffering from chronic sexual desire. Like many Keynesian-sympathizers who see deficit spending as the solution to economic woes, Christians – regardless of sex, race, and marital status – recommend patience as the only honorable choice for singles. As a short-run Band-Aid, waiting can work; but it hasn’t proven to be a viable solution in the long-run.

In my opinion, the biblical support for singles waiting is shaky. Yes, there are passages instructing us to be patient and persevere, but persecution and vengeance are generally the concern, not husband (or wife) hunting. We have the example of Hannah in 1 Samuel, but she was praying for a child, not a husband. We have Adam being put to sleep in the Garden of Eden, but his wait had an expressed divine purpose. (And if you ask a young-earth creationist, he’ll insist that Adam was asleep for, at most, a few hours.)

I’m not suggesting that patience isn’t a quality worth pursuing. It’s just being misapplied. Many Christians see waiting as part of a paradigm, sort of a worldview in which one’s marriage prospects are solely divine business while people exercise freewill in hunting for food, a job, a house, and everything else in life. Its advocates, although well-meaning, are generally naïve about temptation too. A single facing temptation to use pornography or sexual experiment is rightly told to flee (1 Corinthians 6:18; 2 Timothy 2:22; cf. Joseph and Potiphar’s wife in Genesis 39). This eliminates the immediate danger, but doesn’t solve the problem of having unmet sexual needs. Rebounds just encourage onlookers to lecture even more about fleeing and waiting.

It’s very suspicious that the Christians advising this are, more often than not, either married (i.e., have a legitimate sexual outlet) or admittedly uninterested in sex (i.e., asexual, voluntarily celibate, or in possession of a naturally low sex drive). And they generally don’t even stop lecturing a moment to put themselves in others’ shoes. Rather than give up belief that fleeing and waiting is the only solution, many even accuse struggling singles of neither trusting God nor attempting to control themselves.

The Apostle Paul was more sympathetic. He outright says that he wishes everyone – married and single – could be celibate, yet he admits that it’s a “gift” that few have (1 Corinthians 7:7; cf. Jesus discussing eunuchs in Matthew 19:12). To those who can’t control their sexual urges, he offers one and only one prescription: marry (1 Corinthians 7:2, 9, & 36). He doesn’t say to wait. In fact, he conveys a sense of urgency, something that Christians have failed to take seriously.

Uncomfortable as it might be to accept, the biblical solution for involuntary celibacy is marital sex. The flee-and-wait approach to life will never satisfy one’s God-given cravings. As Paul suggests, it just makes things worse. I know that from personal experience, as do many others. It’s not surprising that so many Christians succumb to sin when their fellow believers make light of their situation and the cure. Until the Christian community makes a conscious decision to change the way we address singles’ sexual needs, it will continue to lose the battle against pornography and fornication.

Thoughts on Proverbs

2011-09-28T23:29:00.000-07:00

We humans, as a rule, enjoy seeing others look bad. Give us a good scandal and even just an embarrassing scenario, and we’re all set. Why else would a race spend so much time and money on the National Enquirer, American Idol, Dr. Phil, Judge Judy, and other venues for public humiliation? Why would fictitious characters, like Hercule Poirot and Perry Mason, be admired for their ability to tease out embarrassing facts about even the most immaterial witnesses? I can’t imagine many things worse than having my love life analyzed by a homicide detective or litigation attorney who’s obviously bored with his job. But one person’s living nightmare is another’s entertainment, and as long as we personally aren’t the target of gossip, we believe everything’s okay.

I wonder if commercialized humiliation desensitizes us to its severity. If we laugh at someone on television, maybe it’s easier to use each other’s deepest, darkest secrets for our own gain. Whether through a well-planned slip of the tongue or well-timed public announcement, knowledge is power, and it can help us boost a case – weak or strong – in our favor. King Solomon warns against doing this. By far, Proverbs is my least favorite book of the Bible, primarily because it’s unclear just how wise sayings are supposed to be interpreted and applied in our lives. (And it’s also partly because early on I realized that I’d be a very “quarrelsome wife”!) But I think that Proverbs 25:7b-10 (ESV) provides a practical lesson:

What your eyes have seen do not hastily bring into court,
for what will you do in the end, when your neighbor puts you to shame?
Argue your case with your neighbor himself, and do not reveal another’s secret,
lest he who hears you bring shame upon you, and your ill repute have no end.

I suppose there are a number of ways to interpret this passage, but I’d like to focus on the third line. The NIV says it even better: “do not betray another’s confidence” (v. 9). That might mean refraining from gossip or settling potentially-embarrassing suits out of court whenever possible. It also would prohibit taking cheap shots at your opponent by revealing information irrelevant to a case brought before the court. There are plenty of opportunities do damage to another’s reputation in divorce cases, paternity suits, and other legal annoyances. However, we shouldn’t take advantage of a single one. In other words, we’re not to mimic the antics found in courtroom dramas. Every precaution should be taken to avoid the needless embarrassment of others.

That’s a whole lot to swallow. To start, maybe we need to ask ourselves why someone’s secret needs to become common knowledge. If we as Christians truly cared about the other person, why expose them? Why intentionally betray their trust? “For their own good” is my paraphrase of a popular answer. The dissenting view begins with a reference to Christ’s conversation with the Samaritan woman (John 4:1-42), arguing that people need to hear the awful truth about themselves. This argument has no foundation. Jesus actually follows Solomon’s instruction by talking to the woman one-on-one about her messed up life. He didn’t wait until the well was crowded with other young women collecting water.

The same applies to the times when a prophet condemns a king in the presence of his friends and advisors, or when the apostle Paul refers to the sinful behavior of particular church members in his letters. Those people were accomplices or parties relevant to the situation. No one was hearing anything about which they didn’t already know. They were directly involved somehow, such as in asking Paul how to deal with a rebellious fellow believer.

I don’t deny that there will be times when private information is accidentally revealed. I also don’t deny that there are times when secrets must be shared in public for a problem to be resolved quickly and completely. However, I’m concerned about our own motives for cutting each other down. When winning at any cost is the goal, we justify a “take no prisoners” approach. But that’s easy. Too easy. Having real compassion, however, is a challenge, one that far too many people prefer to avoid.

When the Price Is Too High

2011-09-21T00:55:00.000-07:00

I teach basic economics to college freshmen. When the supply and demand model is first introduced in my lectures, invariably there’s a question about those poor souls who are unable and/or unwilling to pay the market-determined price. How can a situation that results in many people going without food, clothing, or cellphones be efficient when it’s clearly not socially optimal?

The same question might be asked about the relationship market (or the marriage market, as the case may be). Depressingly low sex ratios, high rates of male incarceration, and a number of other factors create a society in which women, regardless of race, religion, or socio-economic status, feel pressured to “put out” more than they would like to just to gain a nanosecond of masculine attention. What does it take to bring about a more preferable outcome?

There are a number of ways we can go about to lower the price. Eliminating the competition is one option. During the Middle Ages, many baby girls received a one-way ticket to a convent (to be used when they were grown, of course). Today, Christians admonish each other to give up the search and instead to “be content in the Lord.” Some feminist-leaning academics try to change consumer preferences by reciting all the reasons why men are defective goods. Yet, the end result is generally not decreased consumer demand. Demand stays put, and the only change is that would-be buyers feel guilty about going shopping.

Another option, of course, is increasing the supply. The market is opened up to foreign producers. Women start shopping for men outside their racial, religious, and socio-economic preferences. The requirements of “tall, dark, and handsome” are replaced with “breathing and not currently in prison.” Some women discover that what they thought they didn’t want is what they really wanted all along. Others “settle” with something less desirable. And others still leave empty handed, muttering about the prices. Why? For every new sub-demographic of men considered, its female counterpart is there aggressively bidding up the prices. Instead of finding yourself competing with two women for one man, you’re competing with ten women for three men and pretending that your odds have improved.

By now, dear reader, you’re protesting that I’ve reversed gender roles. However, please bear in mind that every buyer is a seller, and every seller a buyer. For the men, they are looking at high price tags too: their freedom. When an average woman starts singing “Put a Ring on It,” from the perspective of male shoppers, they’re being asked to “cough up a lot of dough” for a product that they didn’t really want. Solitary confinement starts looking really good.

So, we’re back to square one. There are too many men and women left single, unable and/or unwilling to pay the price it takes to find someone special in today’s unregulated market. What do we do about it? Appeal to the suppliers’ consciences, urging them to pass up opportunities to profit and instead provide discounts for low-income buyers? In other words, compel people to enter relationships on unfavorable terms in a spirit of sympathy and self-sacrifice. Men wouldn’t demand sexual favors. Women wouldn’t demand fidelity. We’d have an alternative universe filled with irrational people unmotivated by wants and profit. Any takers? I’m guessing not.

People desire intimate relationships. That’s the way we were made. Unfortunately, romantic attention is more often than not a scarce good. It’s like water in the Sahara. When the price is too high, we’re forced to either pay up or abandon the market for this basic necessity. Is it any wonder why some will risk “life and limb” to “spend an arm and a leg” for it?

This has sad implications for today’s young women. There’s nothing more heart-wrenching than being a perpetual wall-flower in the dance of life. Onlookers – often comfortably attached themselves – just shake their heads in disbelief, watching girls making unwise exchanges: (unprotected) sex for brief attentions. Yet, given the current state of things, this behavior is rational. They are freely paying the going rate – perhaps higher than they’d prefer – for something they desperately want. Unless and until key factors within the market fundamentally change, we can’t realistically expect the girls to change their behavior. Whether it’s Tickle-Me Elmo, Nintendo Wii, membership in an exclusive club, or a first kiss, it’s difficult to convince someone something precious to her is not worth fighting for.

This post was written for the No Wedding No Womb 2011 Campaign, organized by So Cal’s own Christelyn Russell-Karazin. The purpose of this mega-blog event is to spread awareness about out-of-wedlock births within the African American community and inspire black girls and women to initiate change. Head over to the NWNW site to catch other bloggers’ perspectives on this issue.

Sic semper amatoribus, or The Romance of the Breakup, Part 1

2011-09-08T22:28:00.000-07:00

Caroline County, in northeastern Virginia, certainly has an exciting past. Like most of Virginia, there’s all the Colonial, Revolutionary, and Civil War history. William Clark of the Lewis and Clark Expedition was born there. General “Stonewall” Jackson died there. Richard and Mildred Loving decided to challenge its anti-miscegenation laws by living there. And, most importantly, John Wilkes Booth (or his doppelgänger) was apprehended there. I have to single out that last one because, back in mid-August, I chose my title because the stars were Virginians. It wasn’t until I read up on the local history this afternoon that I made the connection with the Garrett farm near Port Royal. Now the title seems even more appropriate.

Are lovers tyrants? Emma J. Arnall and her short-term pen pal E.L.R. Dunn were certainly playing a control game with each other. It appears that the two Chilesburg lovers disagreed on the best way to handle a secret love affair and an embarrassing scandal in a small community. They relied on secondhand information from local gossips, which tore apart what little they had in a relationship. The girl appears to have been a spoiled brat, bored with her would-be lover. The guy seems to have been the possessive and jealous type, too oblivious to realize that the reason why she ignored his requests was because she genuinely disliked being his girlfriend. But I’ll get to the letters’ content later. The big question for today is who were these people.

I hope that an Arnall family member will stumble across this and set everything straight. The sketchy records that I’ve found so far suggest the following story: Emma (b. Sept. 7, 1855) was the eldest child of Richard D. Arnall (1829-1916) and Sarah E. Arnall née Mitchell (b. 1833). Emma’s paternal grandfather, farmer Richard Arnall, was born in Hanover County in the 1790s and lived there with his growing family until after the 1830s. He might have served as a private in the Virginia Militia during the War of 1812.

Around 1853, Richard D., probably Richard’s oldest son, married Sarah Mitchell, and both sides of the family were residing in Caroline County. In 1860, Richard D. worked as a wheelwright, supporting a wife and three little girls. He must have done well enough financially. His daughters learned how to read and write, and like his parents, he could afford to own a mulatto slave girl, presumably to care for the house. It’s possible that he followed his father’s military footsteps by joining up with one of the area’s many Virginia Militia units fighting for the Confederate Army, but there’s also indication that certain names, like “Richard,” run at triple time in the extended Arnall family. By 1900, Richard D. was working as a carpenter in Henrico County, widowed and lying about his age. Living with him were his daughters Emma J. and Delia (or Delila) C., both their forties and still single. As Emma the spinster worked as a dressmaker, I wonder if she ever thought about the man she’d scared away as an inexperienced girl of seventeen.

E.L.R. Dunn, affectionately called “Dolie,” is a mystery man. The letters seem to suggest that he moved around a lot, but I have reason to believe that, like Emma, he had roots in Caroline County and spent most of his life in that area. Given that only initials were used in the letters, my investigation of Dunn’s background was extremely difficult. However, by utilizing every possible clue in the lone letter from him to his daughter, I was able to unravel a story from the censuses. (I hope members of the Dunn-Melcalf family can fill in the holes.)

In 1850, Dolie’s father Edmond J. Dunn (b. c. 1820) boarded in Hanover County with the widow Maria Anderson and her children. (Her son Robert, a farmer, is probably the “Mr. Anderson” mentioned in one of Emma’s letters.) By 1860, Edmond J. had his own farm in Caroline County, two slaves, a wife Isabella L. (or S.), and a five-year-old son. Dolie must have inherited something from his mother: self-consciousness. Between the 1860 and 1870 censuses, Isabella (b. c. 1827) only aged seven years. E.L.R., however, eventually grew accustomed to his secret name: Eldorus (or Eldoris, depending on which enumerator you choose to believe).

Dolie (b. c. 1854/1855) was 17 or 18 when he started writing to Emma in 1873. Maybe she thought he wouldn’t amount to anything as a farmer. He must have taken the break up well since, by 1880, he was married to a Mary (b. c. 1857) from New Jersey and had an eight-month-old baby girl, “Hester.” Esther would have to wait until the 1910 census for an enumerator to get her name right. In 1900, her five-year-old brother Leroy must have answered the door and informed the government man that his 18-year-old sister’s name was “Essie.” (Yes, I made that up. If that’s true, he eventually got his in return, the later censuses butchering his name into “La Roy.”)

In 1900, Dolie was a postmaster in Bowling Green, perhaps drawn to that position by Emma’s earlier complaints about the mail service. Esther was a postal clerk. It’s possible that, not too long after, she attended the historic Virginia Commonwealth University. She had been staying in Richmond in an apartment near the campus for a while when her father wrote his “Essie” in 1906. Judging from the letter’s contents, he was an attentive and generous father. It’s not likely that he lived long enough to see her married to someone named Melcalf. By 1910, he left surviving a widow, son (who was possibly drafted for World War I), and married daughter. Leroy would eventually marry a Maude S. and have three daughters of his own…keeping up the family’s presence in Caroline County, Virginia.

Thoughts on Matthew

2011-09-03T16:10:00.000-07:00

Even though I read the Bible in a haphazard manner, skipping around and such, I’ve noticed that, of the Gospel accounts, I always end up beginning with Matthew (c. AD 40-65). This time was no different. My journal notes contain thoughts on a number of passages, but today I wanted to discuss the infamous passage on judging others:

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” – Matthew 7:1-5 (ESV)

There’s a hint at a difference in the quality of the two sins by Jesus Christ’s choice of words (e.g., “speck” and “log” in the English Standard Version; “tiny particle” and “beam of timber” in the Amplified Bible; “mote” and “beam” in the King James Version/Authorized Version). As many a children’s Sunday School teachers has pointed out, we should be aware of our hypocrisy and self-righteousness when we’re tempted to criticize other sinners while still wallowing in our own sin. However, as 7:5 says, our sin doesn’t preclude us from judging others at all, but only that God requires our own self-reflection and repentance before correcting others. In addition, I’d argue that the verse says that those who have healed from “worse” sins have a right – an obligation – to correct those with “minor” ones.

On the surface, that might not bother many people. However, in practice, things don’t always work out that way. Most Christians seem unprepared to accept godly criticism from each other. Maybe there’s one acceptation. We expect the woman who used to sleep around and had six kids out of wedlock to tell the junior highers to save sex for marriage, but that’s about it. If the same woman pulled you aside because you were being rude, prideful, or something of that kind, would you listen? Or would you be thinking, She used to be the town slut. I think most would fall in the latter category.

Ignoring the fact that we Christians are quite willing to take instruction from Christ-denying Peter and Christian-persecuting Paul, we’re quite insistent that the rest of humanity should feel their guilt and do perpetual penance for their mistakes, looking to those who haven’t committed comparable sins as spiritual superiors. However, Matthew tells us that these former sinners have something to teach current sinners, regardless of how their faults are compared. It would take a special kind of maturity to bite one’s lip, show humility, and acknowledge a judgment from another Christian. Their success in overcoming grave sins deserves our respect and a willingness to reexamine ourselves in light of their accusations.

Thoughts on Hosea

2011-08-24T19:12:00.000-07:00

I’m baffled by those who’d turn over the award for Best Romance to Ruth or Song of Solomon. Ruth isn’t romantic at all. The men who say so are fooling only themselves. It’s all about opportunism of a divinely-sanctioned sort. And the variety of romance found in the Song of Songs isn’t anything with which anyone nowadays can – or cares to – identify. Of course, that might be the case simply because no one’s quite sure what the storyline is.

Now take Hosea:

“Therefore, behold, I will allure her,
and bring her into the wilderness,
and speak tenderly to her.
And there I will give her her vineyards
and make the Valley of Achor a door of hope.
And there she shall answer as in the days of her youth,
as at the time when she came out of the land of Egypt.
- Hosea 2:14-15 (ESV)

Sigh.

But like the best romances, this is a tragedy (only one with a promise of a happy ending). God uses the maternal affairs of His prophet to illustrate His own love for His people who have turned away from Him (i.e., “played the whore”). The pain felt along with the longing to set everything right is present in the text. There is tension between justice and mercy, punishment and reconciliation (cf. Matthew 1:18-25).

Interestingly enough, God doesn’t share His woes to solicit pity. He demands empathy. The “children of Israel” are no more faithful to each other than they are to their Lord. The daughters are prostitutes, dragging the family name through the mud, and the wives commit adultery, la traïson. God uses these examples to show how much the Israelite’s infidelity insults Him. Those who are unfaithful to God do not deserve justice when others sin against them (Hosea 4:14). Taken from a different perspective, as told in “The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant,” we owe others mercy precisely because God has shown us mercy (Matthew 18:21-35; cf. Luke 17:3-4).

That’s probably one of the most difficult lessons in the whole Bible: taking the “Golden Rule” (Matthew 7:12; Luke 3:31; etc.) and its negative form to a natural conclusion. God offers us forgiveness with the expectation – dare I say, under the condition – that we reciprocate by offering it to our fellow man. This is one of those principles that sounds great in church but doesn’t make it out the front door after the service lets out. We each have our own list of unpardonable sins. My own list concentrates on episodes involving heartbreak, public shame, childhood trauma, and devastating long-term consequences. As petty as these might seem from a larger perspective, these are serious obstacles to completely healing my relationships with others.

The question running through my mind is not “why,” since I know I must forgive others, but “how.” When we have to live with the repercussions of others’ poor judgment, it’s difficult to forgive. When others perpetually sin against us, we argue that they’re not genuinely repentant and therefore undeserving of forgiveness. Showing mercy on others becomes a daily chore of astronomical proportions. We’re obligated to do this, but how can we bear it?

Thoughts on Revelation

2011-08-22T16:52:00.000-07:00

Last night I finished the Book of Revelation (c. AD 68-70). In my teens and early twenties, I was literally obsessed with eschatology, reading tons of material promoting and critiquing the dozens of different viewpoints Christians have on the “end times.” Sometime around age twenty-five, I lost interest, and Revelation became a really tiresome book. However, this time I did get a fresh look at it.

The one thing that really stood out to me was an apparent parallel between the apocalyptic plagues seen in John’s vision and the ten plagues of Egypt discussed in the Book of Exodus. In the past, while my attention had been directed towards arguments about the proper interpretation of the seven angels, seven trumpets, and seven bowls, I had overlooked one key phrase found amongst it all:

“…and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city that symbolically is called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified.” - Revelation 11:8 (ESV)

There’s a clear association made between Egypt and Jerusalem. I had to kick myself for not realizing the relationship before, but then I wondered why, out of the many preachers, authors, or speakers I’ve come across, I can’t recall one ever pointing out a connection with the Egyptian plagues. Did they not notice it either? Or was it just dismissed it as unimportant? Taking a fresh look at the text now, I wonder why that story from the Old Testament Law hasn’t played a stronger role in the development of “last days” theories.

Does everyone else see what I’m seeing? (Or am I forcing too much into the text?) Is there a way to account for the missing matches? Has someone written about this?

Egyptian Plagues

Water Turned to Blood (Exodus 7:14-25)
Frogs (Exodus 8:1-15)
Gnats (Exodus 8:16-19)
Flies (Exodus 8:20-32)
Egyptian Livestock Die (Exodus 9:1-7)
Boils (Exodus 9:8-12)
Hail [Thunder, Lighting] (Exodus 9:13-35)
Locusts (Exodus 10:1-20)
Darkness (Exodus 10:21-29)
Death of the Firstborn [by the “Angel of Death”] (Exodus 11; 12:1-32)

Apocalyptic Plagues

[1] Water Turned to Blood (Revelation 8:8-9; 16:3-6; cf. 8:10-11 [Wormwood - It's making it undrinkable all the same.])
[2] Unclean Spirits Like Frogs (Revelation 16:12-14)
[6] Sores

Revelation 16:2; cf. 16:11

[7] Hail and Fire [Earthquake, Thunder, Lighting] (Revelation 8:7; 16:8-9; 16:18-21)
[8] Locusts (Revelation 9:3-11)
[9] Darkness (Revelation 8:12; 9:2; 16:10-11)
[10] Death by Released Angels (Revelation 9:13-19)

Photos Not Re-Touched

2011-08-20T14:34:00.000-07:00

“Is that really you?”

No, it’s a pixelated image of me.

Recently, I was thinking about how I need to do another photo shoot since the pictures I’m using are way past the one year mark. (It’s been one and a half years to be exact.) That brought to mind an exchange that took place when I had the old ones taken. I’d decided (during a brief period of insanity) to reenter the online dating arena and, having been dissatisfied with my earlier makeup-less pics taken with my point-and-click digital camera, wanted something more professional looking.

I scheduled an appointment with a local photographer (who has a great report with his clients, btw), and let his stylist do whatever with my face. Looking back, I know I should’ve spent more time prepping (primping). And something appears to have gone wrong the either the makeup or the lighting. But all in all, the results were satisfactory. I was happy with photos, and everyone I showed them too loved them.

That said, I was still advised to have them re-touched. As I sat at a computer looking at the dozen or so photographs, the retoucher guy was telling me about all the changes “we” should make. I was a bit taken back by this. It wasn’t as though the idea was new to me. I’d “photoshopped” an image or two to because of red-eye or poor lighting. But manipulating a photo to hide physical blemishes and imperfections seemed like overkill.

I’m not a professional model whose only purpose is to sell something. I’m a real person who’s keenly aware of what goes on on dating sites. Everyone has a tale about meeting someone who didn’t look like his or her picture, either because it was an old one or a fraud. Maybe I was paranoid, but it seemed dishonest to paint myself a flat tummy when I not motivated enough to make it a reality.

Twelve years ago, I sat in a class on the history of jazz music. The professor talked about the one-shot recordings. In the 1920s, bands like Louis Armstrong’s Hot Five didn’t have the luxury of cutting and pasting their six best takes, and rerecording was expensive. So the listener is treated to what amounts to a live performance, flaws and all. But we tend to love the genuineness of those early recording…sort of like the old movie swordfights: real skill, no special effects to make people look cooler than they really are.

But wait! Don’t makeup, hair dye, and undergarments of steel create an ideal that will never materialize? Can’t clothing, lighting, and well-selected camera angles hide flaws anyway? Where do we draw the line? It’s impossible to second guess anyone browsing your profile. Who knows what will offend someone.

On the other hand, do guys ever even notice?

Thoughts on Jonah

2011-08-16T21:02:00.000-07:00

I’ve blogged about Jonah before (or more specifically, the “Jonah Syndrome”). I like the book because of how it shows God’s patience and mercy (3:10; 4:2). From earlier Old Testament history, when the Israelites are warring against the Canaanites, it might seem as though He doesn’t care about all the lives (human and animal) and property destroyed; but this book shows that God is very calculated – even economical – about His judgments. He shows pity on the repentant Assyrians of Nineveh and chooses to spare them and their livestock (4:11; cf. 3:7-9).

Another important part of Jonah’s story is that of God’s mercy on the runaway prophet. Despite being a “type of Christ” in both calming a storm while at sea (1:4-6, 15; cf. Matthew 8:23-27; Mark 4:35-41; Luke 8:22-25) and being in a fishy tomb for three days and nights (1:17; cf. Matthew 12:39; Luke 11:30), Jonah disobeyed the Lord. So, like King David, he cried out to God for help.

If I knew more about Hebrew literature and the prayer's construction, I would know whether or not to call it a “speech,” “poem,” or “song.” Regardless, I’m often surprised that no Christian musician seems to have ever bothered to set it to music. Is it because we’ve decided that David’s psalms are aesthetically superior? Or is it because putting Jonah’s words into our mouths would be a blatant admission of our own guilt? As “sinners in the hand of an angry God,” why not sing it? Doing so has already literally saved one man from “Hell” (2:1).

Thoughts on I Peter

2011-08-11T23:07:00.000-07:00

The first Petrine epistle (c. AD 64-65) is popular among those hailing from the Stone-Campbellite churches because of its strong message about baptism (3:21). But among the rest of Christiandom, 3:1-6 (or 3:1-7, as the case may be) gets the most airtime. The verse about Sarah calling Abraham “lord” (3:6) seems to be a particular favorite of men across all demographics. When rereading this book recently, I was reminded of a number of bitter discussions over the apostle’s commandment for wives to be subject to their husbands. However, the proper interpretation of this passage is not what I wish to draw your attention to this evening. I’m concerned about how we as believers of the Word determine context.

From 1 Peter 2:11-3:9ff, the author looks at Christian conduct and reputation and, in a Pauline fashion, admonishes his readers to watch their behavior so that they may be better witnesses to unbelievers. He gives three examples of case law, if you will: how Christians in general should treat unbelieving civil authorities (2:13-17), how Christian servants should treat unbelieving masters (2:18-25), and how Christian women should threat unbelieving husbands (3:1-6). In all three, forms of “to subject one’s self” (ὑποτάσσω) are found: Ὑποτάγητε (2:13) and ὑποτασσόμενοι (2:18, 3:1). Even in translations where different English words are used, an obvious connection is made. The author intends for his readers to defer to the earthly authorities placed over them in a like manner.

What bothers me is not so much the way “subject” is defined and defended, but the way the definitions are so consistently applied inconsistently. Many Christians are quick to argue the strictest interpretation of “subject” in the case of wives to their husbands, but then outright deny any responsibility of men to their governments. Worse yet, once confronted with the biblical text, they stubbornly refuse to provide any explanation whatsoever for why they insist that 2:13 is obsolete but 3:1 still in effect. It’s picking and choosing your Scripture at its worst.

The simplest interpretation seems to me that Peter had in mind one definition for ὑποτάσσω and purposely created the three consecutive, parallel passages to show his readers how to carry out his instructions in 2:12. That would mean that those who take a very strict view of wives’ duties to their husbands (e.g., no recourse in cases of physical abuse, adultery, nonconsensual sodomy, or abandonment) should also advocate complete submission to all taxes and laws imposed on them. On the other hand, for those who insist that they have a right to “alter or abolish” their governmental system, a more liberal stand on marriage is in order. It’s my opinion that many of the unrealistic (or outright dangerous) interpretations would disappear from the debates on wifely submission once men are required to impose the same rules on themselves.

A Lament for Chivalry

2011-07-20T15:20:00.000-07:00

Chivalry is dead, but second-wave feminism didn’t kill it. It was a casualty of rugged American individualism.* A medieval code of gallantry and honor, chivalry was a mere byproduct of a social structure founded on recognizing one’s God-given role in life and dutifully submitting to it. In contrast, our society is plagued with people who have no sense of social obligation. It’s socially correct to blame a self-absorbed, nearsighted materialistic culture committed to promiscuity and fatalistic eschatology, but I’m naming a different cause: the democratization of our traditionally hierarchical economic, political, and religious systems, a.k.a. free-market “capitalism,” liberal philosophy, and evangelical spiritualism.

With a growing public concern for the individual’s rights, privileges, and wants came a new attitude about living. No one thinks in terms of what preserves society. We’re committed to a neo-Smithian doctrine that says what’s desired by the individual is best for society…theoretically, of course, since in practice we really don’t care what happens to everyone else. How amazing it is that we are starving from lack of altruism in a country known for its astronomically high levels of charitable giving.

Over the last half-century, Miss Manners and others have written books on what we might call “common-sense” or “Golden Rule” manners because society degraded further than even Paul Fussell would have thought possible. Today, middle class Christiandom obsesses with the finer points of European court etiquette while neglecting the weightier matters of the law such as Thou shalt not use argumentum ad hominem against thy neighbor on an online forum. Worse still, our religious leaders, whom we seek to emulate, devote their careers to poking fun at others in a condescending pharisaical manner.** Like the nineteenth century snobs who refused to help “undeserving” single mothers, we use others’ weaknesses as an excuse to mistreat them and exclude them from receiving a welcoming Gospel message. We do this because it makes us feel better about our own failures, and we do this because we have no sense of duty to our fellow man.

Case in point: The lesson of comparing Jane Austin’s Mr. Darcy from Pride and Prejudice with Mr. Knightly from Emma is completely lost on our young men. Helping someone in need (e.g., asking a wallflower to dance) plays second to the pursuit of one’s selfish ambitions (e.g., dancing only with attractive ladies) despite the promise of winning the approval of God (for putting others’ first) and the respect of onlookers (including any pretty ones). The strangest thing is not that this sort of behavior is a regular occurrence but that it’s committed by those who honestly believe themselves to be well-bred, gentlemanly, chivalrous. With white knights like those, who needs dragons?

Since chivalry was first pronounced dead, many have asked how to go about reviving it. No chance of that happening by women acting vulnerable and helpless. This oft-promoted “solution” hasn’t worked. Feminist independence was a reaction to masculine individualism (e.g., the right to drink, gamble, beat and starve one’s family, and not come home at night). Essentially reinstating gender relations of a bygone era doesn’t bring back chivalry. This just sets us back to a point when women accepted the fact it was on life support. The only difference is that today women become more angry faster when no one comes to rescue them. It only takes one dreadful experience to learn that we can’t depend on strangers. Until people learn how to reach out and meet others’ needs first, we can’t teach others to rely on them.

* In case I haven’t made myself clear: Yes, I’m blaming a modern masculinity. Or better put, I’m admonishing the sons of Adam for following his lead.
** Let the record show that I called Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church a “Pharisee.”

On Black Families, Bachmann, and Blackman et. al

2011-07-08T18:01:00.000-07:00

So today the big news was that Tea Party leader and candidate for the Republican presidential primary Michele Bachmann signed The Family Leader’s pledge, “The Marriage Vow: A Declaration of Dependence Upon Marriage and Family.” And what I found was a citation fumble so ridiculous that it makes me wish school was still in session so I could show my students…Well, almost wish.

Anyway, the part that triggered the most online controversy was this:

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.³

Notice the footnote number? Well, not too unsurprisingly, the study put out by the Institute for American Values – “The Consequences of Marriage for African Americans: A Comprehensive Literature Review” by Lorraine Blackman, Obie Clayton, Norval Glenn, Linda Malone-Colon, and Alex Roberts – doesn’t support the claim in the pledge. (Really, please show me where it does!)

The study is pretty straightforward and reiterates much of what the public has already heard: Marriage benefits blacks differently than whites. Marriage benefits black men differently than black women. Marriage is important for black kids. Nothing new. It also mentions typical arguments for why black families have failed today, most notably “father absenteeism,” the redefining of male-female relationships, and other structural problems related to a history of slavery, discrimination, and poverty. In other words, slavery is cited as a possible cause for our baby-daddy problems today, not as “the good ol’ days” as some might interpret from the statement in the pledge.

Getting back to the pledge, there’s no support in the study (or anywhere else I’ve looked) for the claim that two-parent households were more common in 1860. It’s true that two-parent and intact families were more common right after emancipation. (The study cites data findings from 1880, 1890, 1900, and 1910 as examples.) Elsewhere, scholars have attributed this to blacks’ desire to reunite with loved ones, enter mutually-consensual relationships, and improve the race by following the nuclear family pattern. But, again, no praise for African American families under the slave system.

The lesson to be learned here? Simple: Don’t misrepresent other people’s research, especially when it’s so politically charged.

Putting the Elephant on TV

2011-06-28T20:24:00.000-07:00

This morning something occurred to me…sort of the type of thing that knocks you right off your feet. It’s difficult to explain its significance without providing context. Yesterday, I finished rereading Dirty Girls Come Clean, a book written to help women cope with their pornography addictions. Although I think the author, Crystal Renaud of Dirty Girls Ministries, is weak on a number of key points, I admire her courage and insistence on waking up the Christian community to an ever-mounting problem.

Crystal spends a lot of space discussing confession and being honest about your failures as a major step towards healing. This will probably always be something that Christian leaders promote but people find difficult to do. From my own experience, I can say that admitting sin and asking others for forgiveness is probably the most scary thing ever…Okay, second to actual brushes with death.

Anyway, that idea was probably floating around in my head when I was reviewing some documentaries, hoping to incorporate them into my history class. When lecturing on World War II, I usually don’t discuss pro-Nazi sentiment in America – since someone will invariably mention it in the class discussion anyway – but I was in the mood for a change. The Historical Society of the Crescenta Valley has a nice little documentary that includes a short segment on pro-Nazi activities in the area north of Los Angeles. This would be my opportunity to use it.

However, the German American Bund is best known for its Madison Square Garden rally in 1939, an event mentioned in passing in other documentaries. In addition, it was an organization that had been bred and spent its best years in New York, so I turned to Ric Burns’ monolithic New York: A Documentary Film (site), wondering why I didn’t remember anything about the World War II episode. I soon discovered why: There is no World War II episode.

Since my parents had once been involved in the John Birch Society, conspiracy theories must be in my genes. I immediately suspected a PBS cover-up. How can a seventeen and a half-hour documentary that delves head first into a not-so-clean past fail to mention such a famous event? It’s not like this is the most embarrassing thing that’s ever happened in Manhattan. The eight episode series covers the Dutch slave trade, the Civil War draft riots, and enough political corruption to make a Latin American dictator uneasy. These events I’d consider more problematic precisely because of the large percentage of people who believed them to be acceptable. Having garnered limited interest among German Americans and failed to receive Nazi Party recognition, the German American Bund seems to be causing more controversy than would be expected from any other short-lived fringe political movement.

This brings me to my main point: Are the filmmakers behind Rancho La Cañada, Then & Now: The History of the Crescenta-Cañada Valley (site) courageous for being honest about the community’s history? Or are Ric Burns and everyone else involved in the PBS New York documentary cowards for sweeping something out of the textbooks and under the rug? After all, the majority of those likely to see Cañada were probably elderly people who might wish to forget the rallies. It’s not as if many people know about, or care, what went on at Hindenburg Park, sad as it may be. Everyone has heard about New York though, and there were some top historians interviewed in the latter.

Now, suppose there’s a really, really good reason for playing dumb about the Madison Square Garden episode. That still doesn’t explain why World War II is for all practical purposes skipped. I’m sure they could’ve edited out a few minutes about building bridges and skyscrapers to talk about the wartime industrial boom or Italian Americans facing discrimination or one of a billion other things. The fact remains that someone purposely erased an important chapter of New York history.

Ayn Rand the Hypocrite

2011-04-15T10:32:00.000-07:00

Today, Tax Day, a remake of Ayn Rand’s best seller opens here in Orange County. As might be expected, there’s been a lot of excitement among the local Objectivists, libertarians, and other pro-capitalists, who cherish having a feature film to call their own. I, on the other hand, am not exactly jumping up and down for joy.

Although I’ve self-identified as a libertarian for a nearly a decade now, my opinion of Ayn Rand has not improved as I’ve gotten to know more about her. Her position on religion was blasphemous, making man into God. Her tyrannical nature was antithetical to principles of liberty. And her greatest legacy is a Stalinistic personality cult that can only be described as laughable.

But most people prefer to focus on Ayn Rand’s libertarian ideas rather than her more embarrassing views. Whenever I met a faithful follower or passing admirer, I avoided conversation because a critique against her was always twisted into a rejection of laissez-faire economics and individual rights. But something changed this past January.

The Boston snow prevented me from doing a lot of sightseeing, so I spent time off work browsing at Borders and cooped up in the hotel reading my purchases. One was Ayn Rand and the World She Made. The author, Anne C. Heller, although confessing to be a non-Objectivist, is clearly an admirer and at times even an apologist for the literary icon. I expected to get a better understanding of Rand’s life, but I found more. Ayn Rand was no supporter of free markets.

Heller tirelessly recounts Ayn Rand’s unsuccessful career in Hollywood, editing others’ screenplays and trying to promote her own work. It’s not surprising that her books and screenplays were often not well received. She unabashedly wrote propaganda for her own views when audiences wanted to feel good about themselves. Her characters lacked proper development, primarily because she – like many female romance novelists – shied away from tarnishing her precious flawless heroes. And just like B-moviemakers today resort to tasteless jokes for cheap laughs, Rand fell back on an age-old promotional ploy: exciting “non-rape” rape scenes, the only reason why highschoolers ever read her books now.

Now, were many unfavorable reviews of her work a liberal media plot? Possibly. Was the mockery she received by the critics justified? Maybe not. But it still stands that the literary and film industries were unimpressed with her talents, and she was just too stubborn (or perhaps too perfect in her own eyes) to improve.

Any free-market economist worth his salt would say that the producer (Rand) should change to meet the wants of the consumers, find new consumers, or go out of business. Instead, Rand used the strong arm of the law to eliminate the competition and essentially force studios to purchase her work. How? By testifying for the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

Heller makes it clear that Rand’s stance towards real and imagined members of the Communist Party was unfair and inconsistent with her own political views. However, Rand did her best to discredit her opponents so that Hollywood was rid of screenwriters and screenplays that promoted ideas different from hers. And in the aftermath, when studios were frantically searching for “pro-capitalist, anti-Communist screen material,” Heller tells us that Rand was only too happy to comply.

So why even argue? Ayn Rand was not a champion of free markets. She actively used the state to gain monopolistic control when few people were interested in consuming her product. I’m not naïve enough to imagine that her many followers will ever come to terms with this fact, just as they choose to be blind about her deception and disregard for others’ individual rights. But perhaps from their perspective, the Objectivist she-god is not subject to her own laws.

When the Museum Becomes a Kiddie Park

2011-02-03T13:06:00.000-08:00

There’s a lot of talk about the commercialization of museums and the arts in general. The Art of the Steal tells one story – the destruction of the Barnes Foundation, the last great private art collection – about self-congratulatory patrons and money-hungry politicians and trustees bent on sacrificing educational vision for a quick buck.

For other institutions, bigger (or more) is better. Quantity, overcrowding really, whether in Beethoven-padded concerts given by a local symphony orchestra or in Degas ballerina sculptures cluttering the local art museum, is appreciated more than quality. Snappy captions so poorly worded as to make English teachers cry entertain with trivia more than educate visitors about artifacts. Most docents are, at best, well-read amateurs. (I’ve been one and talked with plenty of others.) Gift shops proudly market gaudy jewelry and expensively-priced cheap reproductions to willing buyers. And all of this is done in the name of promoting the arts.

All this commercialization, the cheapening of the arts, is disheartening, but what has increasingly bothered me over the years is something similar but what may very well be more damaging: what I’d call the juvenilization of art, museums, and other institutions. If you go to any museum during the day, you’ll undoubtedly see flocks of school children “learning” about art, science, and adult topics. Their teachers get to feel good about organizing fieldtrips; their parents get to feel good about exposing these young video game-warped minds to “culture.” The nonprofit gets a pat on the back and millions of grant dollars for helping out our schools and giving back to our community. And in the end, the kids only remember getting pushed by Johnny or seeing Suzy’s new sticker tattoo.

Kids like Disneyland. Museums have become little Disneylands in a desperate attempt to get repeat visits. Some recent exhibits, although cleverly designed by knowledgeable curators and education directors, have left me worrying that we’re teaching kids to expect that anything worth appreciating must be all fun and games. It’s even worse in the science museums. Thousands of years of advancement are reduced to “Interactive stations” with blinking lights and rock muzak.

And, lest you think that this can be blamed on Southern California, where jeans and t-shirts have replaced black tie and movie studios are as numerous as educational institutions, I’ve noticed this problem in many other states. It’s a national emergency. A recent trip to Boston and Cambridge proved to me how even major historical and intellectual centers can catch the bug. All the while, it’s still unclear as to why children, unwilling consumers who are not inclined to make donations, are the target audience of what should be adult industries. By “dumbing down” arts and commercializing it, merely to appeal to those it wasn’t designed to reach en masse, something precious is lost. We might very well ask, “What’s the point?”

Daffy and Donald in the Roasting Pan

2011-01-23T12:02:00.000-08:00

Although turkey and ham have been our parents’ Christmas staples, last year Rebecca and I decided to serve our family roast duck. This was rather ambitious since neither of us had ever cooked duck fillets let alone two whole ones. Fortunately for those eating that evening, we were successful. My little sister took care of cleaning the birds, while I rubbed olive oil, dried rosemary, freshly chopped onion, freshly minced garlic, and freshly ground black pepper all over and inside their bodies. (I forgot whether we included dried basil.) It was like giving a slippery baby a bath…only with a lot less screaming. And it was pretty tasty.

TEDx Comes to Orange County This Summer!

2011-01-20T19:53:00.000-08:00

This morning, I received some long-awaited news. My application for TEDxSantaAna – Sorry, Tustin, my love, but you don’t have any good venues! – has finally been approved. I hope all you local TED Conference fans out there will come participate. TEDx Events are comparatively small and low-budget. However, they play a significant role in carrying out the mission of TED: presenting to the laypublic “ideas worth sharing.”

Right now this is a one-woman and three halves-person project. You can see the work-in-progress by following the TEDxSantaAna blog, Twitter feed, and Facebook page. Mark your calendars for Saturday, August 6, 2011 to be in Santa Ana. The time, venue, and confirmed speakers will be announced later.

Now, you’re probably wondering what’s the theme for TEDxSantaAna 2011. We’re going to have an all-homeschool-graduate conference. The list of speakers is growing, but it’s not too late to suggest a few more. If you know of someone aged 25-40 who was educated at home and who might have something fantastic to share from their field or discipline, not only on the stage with the local community but through video with the global online community, then please complete the TEDxSantaAna 2011 Speaker Nomination Form.

While you’re at it, please consider suggesting a (non-homeschooling related) theme for a potential second event: TEDxSantaAna 2012 Theme Nomination Form. I and my growing organizing committee appreciate the help. And speaking of help, if you’d like to help out as a volunteer or by offering a cash or in-kind donation, please send me an email. More information is forthcoming. Spread the word!

WWII Survey Extended

2011-01-15T13:13:00.000-08:00

Back in July, I solicited participants for my WWII Political Leaders Opinion Survey. Rather than being an overly serious research endeavor, it was merely a fun attempt to search for interesting patterns as to how Americans view World War II dictators and politicians.

After a half year of collecting responses, I’m very grateful to those who took the time to complete the survey. Unfortunately, primarily due to the growing number of unfinished attempts, I haven’t reached the desired minimum. So, I’m extending the closing date to the end of this coming July. In the meantime, I’ll continue to write commentaries about my own personal connection with each leader’s legacy.

Facing Fear Fearlessly

2011-01-13T23:30:00.000-08:00

I’m the world’s worst procrastinator. Every once in awhile, someone challenges me on this and walks away defeated. Another personality flaw I have is fear: fear of hurting or offending others, fear of what others might think, fear of how others might act, fear of rejection, fear of saying the wrong thing, fear of looking like an idiot, fear of failure, etc. Put these two together, and I have a tendency to avoid interacting with people as long as possible to put off the expected suffering. Needless to say, procrastinating often makes things worse.

Why do I fear other people? In most cases, they aren’t in a position to cause me any serious pain or suffering. However, I place a high value on others thinking well of me. When I sense that my reputation with someone might change for the worse, it saddens me. Over the years, that has happen more times than I can count or that I’d care to remember if I could.

People have told me that it shouldn’t matter what others think about me, but I don’t believe my concern for my reputation is unfounded. God has been concerned about His reputation. Paul was concerned about how unbelievers perceived church elders and married Christian women. However, there certainly must be a line drawn somewhere between attention to potential problems and paranoia about them. The latter is absolutely stifling. And the more I hesitate to face the unknown at present, the more I feel unprepared to face an increasingly more difficult, unknown future.

Holiday Blues

2011-01-01T09:44:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas, everyone! I’ve gotten off to a bad start. For Christmas, I caught a flu bug going around that then weakened be more a cold, and just when I thought I was better, the cold reappeared for New Year’s Eve. Maybe it’s the cold weather. Maybe it’s the let-down after weeks of ongoing stress (primarily work). At any rate, I feel a bit unprepared for beginning 2011 with a fresh start. It sort of took me by surprised…between midnight coughing fits. I hope you, dear reader, fared better, and after partying all last night, still remember your resolutions. Happy New Year!

A Fishy Love Story, Part 2

2010-12-06T13:43:00.000-08:00

Aircraft Charter Service flight from Oregon to Alaska in 1937: $50

Making your boyfriend’s day: Priceless

This continues the story from Part 1 about the Great Depression Era lovebirds R.W.M. (most likely Ralph Marlyn), working in Southeast Alaska, and Marjorie “Midge” Miller, vacationing Hood River, Oregon. Unlike Ralph’s first letter that has four handwritten sides of paper, his second has two one-sided typed pages on new business stationary. It was dated July 18, 1937, stamped by the Ketchikan post office at 2 PM the following day, and mailed to Route 3, Hood River, Oregon. Ralph’s greeting might have been a private joke, another mystery needing to be solved:

Dearest, darling Midge, & G.O.T. Jury

After updating her on his father (a nail two inches into his foot!) and the weather (raining and windy), Ralph apologizes for not carrying out her orders regarding cherries she sent for friends in a timely manner. He talks about being lonesome for her, continuing with the kind of teasing sentiment found in the first letter, but it’s possible that he was just plain bored, feeling trapped on the island.

A week before, Ralph had expressed remorse about not being able to explore and go mountain climbing as friends had done, but he finally got a break from the cannery. This letter mentions fishing on “Ward’s Lake creek” (most likely Wards Lake, Ketchikan) with someone named Dick Borch, during which he successfully caught “at least a dozen steelheads [rainbow trout] and had the thrill of my fishing career.”

There are two little hints about the economic climate before the storm: The purpose of Ralph’s typed letter on business paper was to show off his logo designs for “The Marlyn Fish Company, Inc.” and the “Berg Packing Company.” J.E. Berg was manager of Ralph’s father’s company, which had branches in Tacoma, Washington and Petersburg, Juneau, and Sitka, Alaska. As the United States heads into the 1937 Recession, Ralph believes that his father is optimistic about future business, evident by him printing enough stationary “to last us a dozen years.”

Sensing a lost opportunity to make money, Ralph regrets not purchasing a boat that spring:

[M]y share of the boats [sic] earnings would by now have been about half the cost of the boat, and the chances of earning a lot through the cannery season are considerable.

As we shall see later from Ralph’s letters, making such a purchase in expectation of a good salmon season would’ve been disastrous. These love letters hold a bit of cultural and economic information that I hope may prove to be valuable to historical researchers someday.

A Picture’s Worth

2010-12-06T08:14:00.000-08:00

Awhile back, I visited The Annenberg Space for Photography. Its current exhibit, Extreme Exposure, had just opened, and I’d driven a little out of my way to take a look at five photographers’ work captured during their routine, but wild, adventures.

Although born out of pain, I found Clyde Butcher’s work to be romantic, probably because black-and-white prints and bulky equipment will always raise a touch of nostalgia. His pictures were absolutely breathtaking, especially when viewed in the large-screened theater. There’s a stillness that almost seems out of place since nature is supposed to be active. The effect was like that of a landscape oil or watercolor painting and a bit eerie.

Michael Nichols and Paul Nicklen are two National Geographic photographers who capture a lot of wildlife in action. The outcomes of their daring adventures were amazing and even humorous at times, but also extremely preachy. Reading one caption after another about endangered animal populations or climate change, I sensed that these photographers, including Butcher to a lesser extent, felt an apparent need to justify doing what they loved. They weren’t artists for art’s sake but activists who’d found a successful medium for advertisement. It’s sad because this tended to cheapen their prints, making them appear no different from any random lower-quality animal shot combined with the same automated conservation message.

Finally, there were volcanic eruptions captured by the globe-trotting couple Stephen and Donna O’Meara, founders of Volcano Watch International. Their portion of the exhibit included photographs of the recent Eyjafjallajökull eruption and volcano-exploring equipment. The color palates captured in many of their shots were beautiful. Who knew that smoke, molten lava, and ash could come in such a variety of colors?

The common theme uniting these photographers was their willingness to “push the limits,” so to speak, to get amazing shots. Learning the stories behind their work made me realize how accustomed I am to seeing “extreme” photography. Having seen the Space’s exhibit, I hope the next time I view such pictures I’ll appreciate the hard work and risk taking that went behind the camera lens.

Parmesan-Bacon-Spinach Salad

2010-12-05T14:12:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, my littlest sister and I conducted an archaeological excavation of the darkest depths of my parents’ pantry and discovered a long-forgotten bottle of Greek Mama’s Parmesan Dipping Oil. Although I’m thinking it would work really well for pasta, it looked like a good way to quickly spruce up a simple salad. So, for lunch today, I divided a bag of organic spinach leaves and crumbed some cooked bacon on top before drizzling the oil as a dressing on top. Since the cheese really wasn’t visible, the taste was a bit surprising for a few family members, but it worked pretty well overall.

Elizabeth Esther's December Saturday Evening Blog Post

2010-12-04T07:12:00.001-08:00

This evening I decided to participate in fellow Californian Elizabeth Esther’s blog list for The Saturday Evening Blog Post. Please take a moment to check out the others.

11110

2010-12-02T04:59:00.000-08:00

I decided to commemorate 4:59 AM on Thursday, December 2, 2010 with the story of my life. But how to organize it? Guess dictatorial regimes will work.

The Royal House of Carter
Location: Los Angeles County. This was not even two months of my life. Even I can’t remember it.

The Royal House of Reagan
Location: Los Angeles County and Orange County. Life was easy – except for learning how to read. And dealing with bullying racist – black, white, and Hispanic – kids. But most of the time I was popular, smart, and pretty. Life was good. As long as I wasn’t caught with Mom’s nail polish. I was going to be a mommy. I have no clue what happened to my preschool crush J.J.

The Royal House of Bush I
Location: Orange County. I broke my arm and had all the pre-teen girl experiences, like slumber parties and going bra shopping. Cooking without Mom’s chaperoning became the norm. I was going to be an author, singer, actress, teacher, princess, and world-famous adventurer. Boys were out of the equation. I wasn’t sure why God even made them. They can’t even get pregnant.

The Royal House of Clinton
Location: Orange County. I was twelve. I’m glad I’ll never be that age again. I also learned how to drive, and my parents have lived to tell about it. I mastered anti-social-ness like a true homeschooler. Reading was pretty much the only thing I ever did. Schoolwork was easy. Piano was easy. So I complained about being bored constantly. I was going to be an astronomer or interior designer. Boys were immature…especially those in my college classes.

The Royal House of Bush II
Location: Orange County, Riverside County, and Los Angeles County. I took up a second instrument. I got two masters degrees. I got my second case of the chicken pox. I lost my second grandparent. I had two beachside summer jobs. And I had two experiences with out-of-state snow (Minnesota and Washington, DC). I didn’t want to be anything when I grew up. I was using graduate school to avoid the real world. I fell in love twice, and had my heart broken twice. Men were jerks.

The Royal House of Obama
Location: Orange County. I advanced to candidacy. I hope to graduate…eventually. When I grow up, I want to be a blogger. My most recent date talked about retirement. No, I’m not seeing him again.

Christian Carnival II – December 1, 2010

2010-12-01T08:46:00.000-08:00

Time for the Christian Carnival II Blog Carnival again. Thanks to everyone who contributed and waited patiently for my Pacific Time Zone posting. Here is this week’s blog list in a not-so-randomly generated order:

“There's No God? How Boring!”
Atheists might think the Intelligent Design movement is a big snore, but conversantlife argues the opposite.

“Guitar Playing as Guitar Praying”
String Love Guitar Lessons gives a lesson on making learning the guitar a religious experience.

“Do You Prefer Wealth or Appearances?”
Free Money Finance talks about flaunting money you don’t have.

“The Worries of This World: A Call to Prayer”
Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength encourages us to give our concerns to God.

“Jesus the Bread of Life”
INSPIKS discusses God’s provision through manna from heaven and Jesus from heaven.

“God Wrestles with Our Strengths”
The Disciple’s Journal talks about relying on our own strength versus surrendering to God. Interesting post, although I’m not sure what sort of example Jacob is since he won.

“No Strings Attached”
W2W Soul discusses how easy it is to be suspicious of others’ intentions rather than gratefully receive from them.

“On This Day in Christian History”
Beyond Belief reviews Robert J. Morgan’s On This Day in Christian History: 365 Amazing and Inspiring Stories about Saints, Martyrs and Heroes.

“Dreams”
Ridge’s Blog talks about pursuing our goals, even the big ones.

“Surviving Rough Relationship Issues”
The Art of Creative Relationship encourages readers to work through problems. I really liked this statement: “Human beings are complex, and when you put two human beings together, you get exponential complexity.”

“Worried About Money? The Bible Says…”
Christian Personal Finance discusses the negative side of stress.

“Men and Temptations”
Who Me Be A Leader? talks about the responsibility to be self-disciplined.

“Who Else Wants a Comfortable Place of Worship for their Family and Special Needs Child?”
Help! S-O-S for Parents lists resource links to help families have a better worship experience.

“Will We Have Blood on Our Hands?”
Other Food: Daily Devos reminds us of our responsibility to unbelievers around us.

“Basic Knowledge for the Educated”
The Chisholm Source talks about the problems explaining evolutionary processes through genetic mutations. I’m puzzled as to the point of the title and final sentence since they would incorrectly imply that the “educated” are all on one side of the debate over Darwinism.

“Nothing but the truth...”
Angela talks about... our relationship with God through prose and pictures.

“No Child Left Behind?”
Thinking in Christ compares state-mandated drugging of children with “sorcery” discussed in the Bible.

“Do You Know How To Receive Gifts?”
Personal Finance By The Book discusses being willing to accept from God and others. Reading it brought to mind Gary Chapman’s The 5 Love Languages since receiving gifts isn’t really one of mine.

“To Treat One Another As Humans”
Thinking Christian responds to critics over gay rights.

“Moral Difficulties in the Bible: The Concessionary Morality Response”Lastly, head over to mike austin’s blog to read more on the discussion about genocide in the Old Testament.

Hwyl fawr.

The Emperor’s New Movie

2010-11-28T17:08:00.000-08:00

When drafting my WWII Political Leaders Opinion Survey, I thought a lot about Hirohito, Emperor Shōwa of Japan. Unlike the rest of the list, he stayed in power well into my childhood. However, his personality cult never really got developed here in the States, so many of us American kids don’t even think about him personally when it comes to remembering World War II history. Maybe the Japanese were viewed as a collective enemy with a faceless leader. Or maybe the ACLU’s presence made the press fearful about turning him into a caricature. At any rate, more and more voices are now speaking about Hirohito’s legacy, his crimes against humanity.

If I had to choose the best documentary ever made, I’m sure that Nanking (site, imdb, netflix) would make it to the final round. Many reviewers use “disturbing” for art as a positive accolade, which I generally find disturbing. However, it’s probably the best word available in this case. Based on Iris Chang’s whistle-blowing book The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II, this film made me wonder how these events could’ve remained silenced for so long.

Recently, there’s appeared another film about Japanese involvement in World War II. Independent filmmaker Akiko Izumitani decided to research the war on Chinese civilians and other little-known incidences for her documentary Silent Shame (site, imdb). She even managed to get some veterans to share their stories, something that probably took an immense amount of courage on their part since they risked shaming their families and comrades. When one mentioned that his mother had told him that the emperor was God, I decided my history textbook wasn’t completely lacking in information. The dictator's assumed divinity was about all its authors thought was worth mentioning.

Reality Hits Hard…Like a Rock

2010-11-27T20:36:00.000-08:00

There’s a serious risk of contracting AIDS via blood transfusions. That’s the message of the independent film Silent Shame (site, imdb), a bilingual drama about pointing fingers. The husband, a closet homosexual who hits the bars at night instead of going home, puts his wife at risk of disease. The wife, emotionally married to a high school sweetheart, attracts suspicion about the real parentage of her son and, perhaps also, the disease. Although the movie is about innocent suffering, there’s seems to be a stronger underlying message: Cultural and religious pressures to conform – at least within the Roman Catholic Hispanic community – make for disaster as young people struggle to meet their parents’ expectations.

I didn’t like the movie (an understatement), but there was a strong element with which I could identify. Virginia, the movie’s protagonist, starts out as an “everything but” kind of virgin, intent on doing everything in the “correct” order. Her parents directly tie her marriage prospects to her virginity. Her refusal to sleep with a boyfriend who does want her results in him cheating on her to satisfy his sexual cravings. She then ends up with a new boyfriend who doesn’t pressure her for sex, not because he’s virtuous or respects her, but because she’s just a cover for his big secret. When her world begins to fall apart after she’s diagnosed with AIDS, she asks a pointed question (my paraphrase): What was the point of saving herself for marriage if life doesn’t go as her parents promised?

Well, it’s a truth universally acknowledged that things rarely go as planned. To what extent that’s the planner’s or planners’ fault varies. However, it should be no surprise when resentment surfaces from those whose lives have been prearranged and rearranged to fit the expectations of others. As James 4:13-15 teaches, we can’t predict the future, so we should be aware that expected benefits might very well never materialize. There’s no simple equation that says that a certain set of inputs (e.g., owning a small business, staying out of debt, not dating, not having sex before marriage) will guarantee a desired result (e.g., having financial success, having a godly marriage).

Unfortunately, there are many people who like to pretend, even in the face of obviously conflicting evidence. Those who dare voice opinion that the real world has a lot of variables unaccounted for are dismissed as pessimists, cop-outs, or worse. Early on, those who try preparing for Plan B are told they’re wasting their time. Later on, those who want to bail are told that they’re sabotaging themselves and that everything hoped for will happen “in God’s time.” It’s like the Great Depression. It is a great depression because that’s often how many of the faithful end up – depressed.

I’m generally an optimistic person. (That’s why I don’t think that Muslims will take over the world or that nuclear warfare is eminent.) However, part of my optimism rests on my belief that people are good at inventing practical solutions to problems at hand. Blind optimism is the sort that leads people to continuously insist to young women that their dreams will come true. Good optimism, in contrast, acknowledges real-life disappointments and encourages an ever-evolving process of updating new dreams in light of the latest information. When things don’t go as planned, it’s time to admit that there were flaws in the plan and move on. The quicker it’s done, the more time there is to put Plan B into action.

Marketing Jesus

2010-11-24T16:46:00.000-08:00

Recently, someone in an old, beaten-up sedan committed an appalling number of traffic sins in about one minute: he cut me off, crawled along at a snail’s pace, weaved back and forth between lanes, and then (once I’d thought I was rid of him) suddenly swerved back in front of me once he realized he was in a turn-only lane. As I’d predicted as my eyes traveled down to his license plate, he was a foreigner; hence, I’m obligated to conclude that he was lost or can’t drive. But what caught my attention were the big words “In God We Trust” that he must have paid the State of Indiana a pretty sum for.

Every day, I see cars with Christianese bumper-stickers and license plate frames that the drivers found witty. When those drivers are rude or not alert, it’s disheartening if not offensive. But in this case, I was puzzled. Here was Indiana’s DMV making money by marketing Jesus to Christian customers. Yes, it’s our country’s official motto. However, who would buy that vanity plate but an enthusiastic believer? I really doubt that Indianan atheists drive around with them.

Christians are a huge consumer market, and many businesses cater to them. But seeing a government agency do the same rubbed me the wrong way. They took advantage of a loophole in their “separation of church and state” doctrine to target Christians with a product that worked on at least one. The Christian driver probably thought he was witnessing for Christ. Instead, he looked like a victim of a mass marketing scheme.

The Homeschooler as Academic

2010-11-22T22:48:00.000-08:00

Rarely do I hear about homeschool graduates tackling Ph.D. programs. In thirty years, I believe I’ve only had personal contact with eight candidates (or at least eight who were out of the closet), and I’m sure I’ve only heard of about a dozen at most. So when the online magazine Generation Impact reviewed Bright Against the Storm I was rather surprised to read that its author Ari Heinze was an astronomy professor. His dissertation research involved using adaptive optics imaging to test the accuracy of statistical predictions of the masses and orbits of planets lying beyond our solar system.* What distinguishes Heinze from most is that he’s successfully completed his graduate studies and continuing to work in academia. I know of only one other, a recent Ph.D. also with a visiting faculty position, who’s managed to get that far.** A flood might occur only after the larger homeschooling generations finish college.

For some reason, academia is often perceived as being anti-homeschooler, but my experiences with professors were actually positive. You see: If there’s anything university faculty despise it’s the public school system. They complain about state standards. They complain about unqualified teachers feeding students inaccurate information. And they complain about students spending too much time in Advanced Placement courses, learning college-level material, when they should be mastering basic reading, writing, and mathematics.

In some ways, college is a great equalizer. Professors generally don’t care whether or not you attended private, public, or charter school. They don’t want to hear about your high school GPA, your AP exams, or your SAT scores. It’s irrelevant whether or not you attended a community college or were homeschooled. What essentially matters is whether or not you do the work. Everything else only matters when they’re looking for an excuse as to why you’re not performing well in class.

The stereotyped homeschooler is the creative independent thinker. What better fit for Ph.D. candidacy is there? Sure homeschoolers have a lot of traits that repel them from graduate programs – procrastination, ideological conflicts with core curricula, the desire to live a normal life – but so does the rest of the world. It would be nice to see more homeschoolers climbing the academic ladder and making significant contributions to their disciplines. I suspect that the social impact would be much greater than what the modern homeschooling movement has achieved so far.

*This is my rough interpretation based on the abstract and introduction. The author was not available for comment.
**He’s one who’d immediately burst out of the closet, but for social reasons has been banging on the door begging to be let back in for years now. That’s why I’m not commenting on his research here.

The Jonah Syndrome

2010-11-17T17:53:00.000-08:00

If someone asked me to name the worst Christian doomsday prophets and naysayers, Gary North would be at the top of my list. He riled up people during the 1980s, preaching about how Reaganomics would destroy America, and then he went into retirement (only to come out again like so many others) because his crazy economic models predicted that 2000 would be the end of the world (the postmillennialism’s definition, of course). I was reminded of all this because someone brought the recent rants of David Bahnsen son-of-Greg to my attention. Following in the footsteps of North, Bahnsen seems to want to see California go to hell in a hand basket.

I've dubbed this the “Jonah Syndrome.” Primary symptoms include praying for immediate divine judgment on one’s enemies and not planning to do anything productive in society until God puts the right people in charge. I believe there’s an important lesson to be learned from Jeremiah 29:4-9 (ESV):

“Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare. For thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Do not let your prophets and your diviners who are among you deceive you, and do not listen to the dreams that they dream, for it is a lie that they are prophesying to you in my name; I did not send them, declares the LORD.”

Notice a few things: The people of Jerusalem were told to be productive in the Babylonian society and pray for its prosperity. Their place and time put them in an unsatisfying situation, but they were told to make the best of it. What great advice to Christians today! We should be living productive lives, not sitting around complaining. We should be trying to improve our communities as a whole and the lives of those around us, not wish for their economic downfall, let alone their eternal damnation. Whatever happened to “Love your neighbor?”

Is California hopeless? No, but Christians should realize that their old plans of action aren’t working and need to be replaced. It only seems hopeless because pessimistic Christians love self-fulfilling prophecies and are actively trying to destroy this state.

The First Big Question

2010-11-16T09:07:00.000-08:00

Thanks to everyone who has participated in my Men and Makeovers Survey – Part 1 so far. Here’s the first of a few questions received from men:

“What do girls think of a guy who wears a pink shirt on occasion?”

If you think you have an answer, please submit it to Men and Makeovers Survey – Part 2. Contributions from both sexes are welcome.

A Thousand and One Nights of Economics

2010-11-08T05:06:00.000-08:00

After a few months of preparation, I’ve finally moved forward with The Economics of Arabian Nights blog. The plan is to post one commentary every week. Hopefully, there will be some good response from my students and others who read it.

Politics: Entertainment for the Rich

2010-11-05T17:10:00.000-07:00

I feel like writing about politics now that the election is past.

Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, and Damon Dunn had one important thing in common: They didn’t care about our political system. People who care register to vote and vote…not register in time to run for office. People who care look for positions that fit their experience level and qualifications and plan to work their way up later…not sign up to run for the highest positions in the land now. These candidates for governor, US senator, and secretary of the state didn’t care about our political system. They were just bored millionaires who didn’t mind wasting millions of dollars and the present value of whatever expected benefits California Republicans had on their latest form of entertainment.

The sad truth is that primaries have become popularity contests. That’s why Arnold “Do Nothing” Schwarzenegger won the recall election. He was popular. Although non-Californians might not understand this, George Murphy and his son Ronald Reagan won their campaigns because they actually had experience that, in the public’s eye, transferred well to the offices they sought. Note that Murphy’s adopted daughter, Shirley Temple Black, didn’t win her primary. Many people didn’t think she qualified. Politics was taken seriously even when movie stars were involved.

This time around, we didn’t have celebrities, so corporate leaders filled in. After a presidential election centered around the inexperience of Barak Obama and Sarah Palin, Whitman, Fiorina, and Dunn made their own laughable bids...probably just for the thrill. And more than the election was lost.

This shouldn’t happen to any political party, much less to a major party with millions of members. Too bad no one thought to restrict it. I wouldn’t recommend anything of this sort for a small party like the American Independent Party or the Libertarian Party, and it might be pointless since we have new primary legislation. However, it makes sense for a major party like the Republican Party to prevent this from happening again.

How? By instituting a rule about who gets to run under the party name and steal support away from other party candidates. The Citizens Redistricting Commission had an interesting requirement for selection: political participation. An applicant had to have the same political party affiliation for the previous five consecutive years. He or she also had to have voted in the previous three major elections (meaning presidential and gubernatorial). This requirement makes a lot of sense. Why hand over so much power to someone as your party representative when that person is completely irrelevant to the political process?

I hope something is done to prevent the unqualified and politically-detached from throwing another election. If the rich need their thrills, they should take a clue from Paris Hilton and start their own reality television shows. They’re more likely to make a positive impression on society.

Religion in Art

2010-11-05T16:00:00.000-07:00

Sometimes religion and morality in art can be inspiring. It’s like another testimony, and one that’s accessible to even the illiterate. However, other times the images can be stomach-churning and ruin morale. The Norton Simon Museum, like other art museums, has collections filled with artwork depicting biblical, mythological, and historical scenes, conveying various the spiritual and moral lessons. Below I discuss two that left me with quite a different impression that the ones I suspect the artists wanted viewers to have.

Resurrection (c. 1455) by Dieric Bouts

Every time I look at this painting or its photograph, I see something new: The use of color to relate Jesus to the heavenly being and to the mortals. The placement of Christ’s head with a halo resembling sunlight peaking over the horizon. One thing I’d like to know more about is whether or not the guards are supposed to be representing different cultures. Their uniforms are very different although united by color, and their beard and hairstyles also seem to indicate different fashions. It’s a very creatively constructed piece.

However, what does it convey from a religious perspective? I’ve heard comments about this painting being “powerful” and about Jesus’ commanding presence, but I don’t see any of that. The only thing that comes to mind is Craig Hazen’s lecture for the Defending the Faith series sponsored by BIOLA University’s Christian Apologetics Program. While discussing alternative theories for Jesus sightings after His death, he describes a hypothetical situation in which Jesus straggles to meet His disciples after waking from a swoon. As Hazen points out, Jesus would’ve been in such terrible shape from the torture and crucifixion that no one would’ve interpreted Him still being alive as a glorious resurrection.

Well, unfortunately, Bouts’ painting to me looks really depressing. Although Hollywood is often accused of “sexing up” history, I still think that Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ has the most accurate resurrection scene: Jesus looks healthy and determined to tackle His next task. Bouts’ Christ looks like He ought to lie back down again until His normal color returns.

The Triumph of Virtue and Nobility Over Ignorance (c. 1740-1750) by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo

This ceiling canvas made me laugh. The haughty look on the face of Virtue brought to mind how easy it is for many Christians to become proud of their virginity, celibacy, refusal to date, or whatever and to never let the sinners of the world forget it. (I know because I was a repeat offender.) Rather than the sweet piety of the Virgin Marys or the carefree innocence of the Dianas found in hundreds of other artworks, this is a depiction of Virtue at her worst. Although Ignorance herself is cast down from heaven, she has made a lasting impression on another who continues to reside there.

Retracing Footsteps

2010-10-30T18:32:00.000-07:00

Opening today at the mission was Lewis & Clark Expedition Across America. This children’s exhibit focuses on the explorers’ experience: befriending American Indians, tracking wild animals, and enduring a transcontinental journey. I can imaging school kids next week playing with the period costumes and teepee, building with Lincoln Logs, smelling the plants, and being grossed out by the animal remains…although the prairie dog pelt was kind of cute. There’s even a “Wheel of Misery” (or at least that’s what I think it’s called) that told me I survived falling from a bluff. Nasty!

Two of my sisters and I spent this afternoon checking out the new addition and amusing ourselves with the Thomas Jefferson quotations. (Being voting season, anything said by a politician gets responded to by a smirk!) For adults, the California Exhibition Resources Alliance has sponsored Lewis and Clark Revisited: A Trail in Modern Day. Photographer Greg MacGregor retraced the path forged by Meriwether Lewis and William Clark’s expedition. He documents not untouched nature but modern reality, yet his black and white pictures still convey a wild and historical feel. If you take a look at the photos online or in his book, Lewis and Clark Revisited: A Photographer's Trail, you’ll see what I mean. Mission San Juan Capistrano’s a small organization not really known for hosting major traveling museum exhibits, but this photo one was a good choice.

Of Men and Makeovers

2010-10-28T19:02:00.000-07:00

About a week ago, I attended “Fit to Flatter,” this month’s free styling event hosted by Style 2020, a fashion consultation firm here in Orange County. What first impressed me was that this was not just some hour-long sales pitch. The stylists were actually interested in educating the guests on how to improve their look. But what I really appreciated was that the first half of the presentation was entirely devoted to men, arguably an underserviced demographic when it comes to teaching about appropriate dress. Too bad the male sex only made up probably 1% of the audience.

Most women will agree that most men need serious help in the fashion department. Most men, I think also agree. But unfortunately very little gets done about it. It’s not that men never ask for advice. I’ve been called upon by friends numerous times to make suggestions, but rarely have I seen a significant effort made to follow through on any of them. Men will admit they have problems, but then refuse to do anything about it. Looking good is a low priority.

There are a number of reasons for this. Men have been indoctrinated with the false notion that looks don’t matter to women. They realize they could use a makeover, but they don’t think of it as a necessity. Whether in the dating market or the job market, men expect to be valued by everything but that related to dress and grooming. Then they’re hurt and offended when they’re judged by their appearances. No, nice clothes and a fit body aren’t mere proxies for money and power. Women like good-looking men. So do employers and clients. It’s a well-proven fact.

I remember once having an otherwise good-looking student who seemed to be unsuccessful hitting on the girls in the class. I really wanted to inform him that his standard wear – disheveled and unwashed hair, tank-top-like undershirts with armpit and chest hair peaking out, worn flip-flops, and too-thin swim trunks – was probably a major turnoff. But he apparently put more trust in his smarts and winning personality. Hopefully, a job search has changed things. (It did for me!) But I know many more like him. You, dear reader, probably do too.

Unfortunately, some men just aren’t motivated to change even when they recognize much can be gained by the process. It’s more fun to criticize women’s dress: too immodest, too old-fashioned, too frumpy, too revealing, too whatever. All the while, men ignore the logs in their own eyes. Case in point: A friend of mine has been very supportive of people creating new books, magazines, and websites devoted to beauty and fashion for Christian women. However, when I once suggested creating a resource for Christian men (soon after Men’s Vogue met its tragic end), he shot that idea down in a flash. Why? He didn’t think it was needed! Hello? I can spend a whole day in LA without spotting a guy wearing a shirt or suit jacket that actually fits well. Yet men think women need another magazine to tell them what to wear?

Many women are low class when it comes to fashion, but it’s the men who are below the poverty level. Who really should get the charity? Many Christian and secular resources are out there telling women “what men want.” Men probably live in fear of retaliation. We don’t see the Harris boys doing a Modesty Survey about what guys wear that disgusts and embarrasses girls! Would giving up sagging pants and “bicep seams”* really be too much of a sacrifice? Maybe it’s true that men can “dish it out” when it comes to criticizing women’s figures and swimsuits but can’t “take it” themselves?

I sincerely believe that, despite the lack of resources, men can learn to dress appropriately. Admit that baggy clothes don’t hide thin frames or belly fat. As one Style 2020 consultant pointed out, clothes are supposed to touch your body. And we need to strike “metrosexual” from the English language. It’s become a catch-all negative label for “anything I don’t usually wear.” And, by all means, men should take solicited advice seriously. It wasn’t provided for them to pick and choose what sounds like the least amount of work.

Now, there are a few brave souls who ask for advice, but they usually doubt its validity and usefulness. Men seem to require at least two female witnesses before accepting that showing off their backsides is disgusting. I’m not saying that all women are fashion geniuses. (After all, I was the one attending a style event!) But there needs to be more resources offering help to men, especially Christian men.

So here’s my idea: the Men and Makeovers Survey – Part I. Women, this is your opportunity to provide your Christian brothers with constructive criticism about men’s fashion, grooming, and modesty (or lack of it). And men can participate too, by submitting questions that women can answer in Part II. The survey’s anonymous on both ends, so there’s no reason to not to participate. Mean comments will be edited. I expect that few men will participate or read the results, but at least there will be a platform for discussion. I’m looking forward to reading your thoughts and sharing them in the future.

*That was a Style 2020 consultant’s term for the shoulder seam on a shirt that’s definitely too large for the wearer!

Christians: Artistic and Entertaining

2010-10-28T06:00:00.000-07:00

The 7th Annual Evening of Arts & Entertainment certainly offered a unique experience. I first heard about Arts & Entertainment Ministries back in the summer of 2006 when Joel Pelsue spoke at one of David Bahnsen’s Southern California Center for Christian Studies conferences here in Orange County. But as schedules go, I didn’t have a chance to attend the organization’s annual event until this year, meaning earlier this month. It was definitely a lot smaller and more intimate than I expected. But it was nice to have the opportunity to leisurely browse the gallery art and actually have conversations with many of the featured artists.

When it comes to art, many Christians focus on how Scripture inspired them. William Butler, Jennifer Kimbrough, and Glen LaMar were three such artists, using paint to convey poetic messages about God’s power and care for His people. Think of soothing lines and abstract work.

By the exit, however, was a very different approach. Kevin Rolly showed highly controversial paintings on not-so-pleasant Bible stories such as Jephthah’s sacrifice and Judah’s affair with his daughter-in-law. He spoke about the importance of depicting evil in art and offering something relevant to the suffering world around us. Although his pieces aren’t what most middle-class Americans would envision in their livingrooms, I felt that they were the most powerful ones exhibited in the gallery.

Last was Kengsen Chong, a Malaysian preacher who enjoys incorporating ancient Chinese characters into his paintings that add very subtle theological meaning. His work might be thought of as “Sir Edward Elgar meets Pablo Picasso.” Although restricted by the Muslim government, this artist apparently has managed to touch his community through his work and arts programs.

For the performance part of the evening, the sanctuary of Vineyard Christian Fellowship-West turned into a theater. First up was Yolanda Tolentino, singing two numbers from her musical Spirals, Boxes, and Clocks with the AEM House Band. I hope the musical eventually gets performed; I’d like to know the story behind “Back to Holding” and “Still Sadness.”

Another vocalist, Kelda, sang “Puzzling” and “I Hear You Now” from her Free album. She had a sweet voice, so I really enjoyed listening to her. In contrast, hiphop artist Jahmal Holland (aka “One Truth”) showed the music video Cannot Close My Eyes, telling a story about the plight of teens (but I wasn’t sure about what exactly). His “He Brings Change,” in my opinion a better song, was performed live along with a shorter work where he rapped about men taking responsibility (from what I could make out). (Next time I’ll have to bring along a baby sister or brother to translate!)

The evening wouldn’t have been complete without spoken word. Kristin Weber, a homeschool graduate who opens for Christian comedians, talked about moving to Los Angeles and informed the audience that she, age 26, was actually 90 in single-homeschool-girl years. (Guess that makes me a centenarian!) Later, poet Aaron Belz read excerpts from Lovely, Raspberry, adding more laughter to the night’s program.

Two films made the cut: The documentary In a Still Small Voice (site) by Steven Holloway featured interviews of Christian artists talking about their work and what being an artist meant to them. Closing the program was Jeffrey Travis’ animated film Flatland (site, imdb). It’s been more than ten years since I’ve read E.A. Abbott’s “romance,” but I remembered enough details to both appreciate and dislike Travis’ modern retelling. I was pleased that the overall point of the story remained intact.

Far cry from a church talent show, this event showcased professionals and their serious work. Not all of it was “Christian” in the sense we might generally use the term, but it was “Christian” in the sense that Christians were doing what they loved and glorifying God in the process. AEM is a small organization, so the evening wasn’t exactly a smooth run. Patrons had a disadvantage since seating was dividing into three categories: reserved for artists and performers, reserved for volunteers, and saved-two-hours-before-curtain-by-family-and-friends. However, I’d still encourage everyone in the Southland to try to make a future show if possible. You probably won’t like everything featured – I sure didn’t! – but it’s worth one trip to see what’s going on with Christians in the secular world of arts and entertainment.

Trail-Mix Ice Cream

2010-10-25T18:00:00.000-07:00

Awhile back, I wrote out this recipe for a contest, which needless to say I didn’t win, probably because it wasn’t original enough. I’ve never requested this from Cold Stone Creamery, but it’s very similar to the way they create their strange mixes. At any rate, here is the revised version without exact measurements (how I do most of my cooking) for your consumption, it you care to try it.

Scoop a desired amount of pre-softened vanilla ice cream on to a pre-frozen piece of stoneware. Thoroughly mix in whatever amounts of Milk Chocolate M&Ms Chocolate Candies, raisins, roasted unsalted peanuts, and roasted unsalted almonds that look appetizing to you. Then let the ice cream refreeze in a mixing bowl for a few minutes. After dishing it out evenly into serving-size bowls, drizzle some chocolate syrup and caramel sauce on top. Then let me know what you think of it.

The Marriage Market

2010-10-25T05:00:00.000-07:00

Early last week, I was teaching my students about the unemployment rate and suddenly it hit me just how similar the marriage market is to the labor market. So here are some redefined terms not found in any legitimate textbook that you can use to impress (or depress) your friends at your next singles party:

Adult Civilian Population: Economists usually define this as those age 16 and older. We know better. Parents may pretend that their daughters are too young to start dating, but girls as young as three start practicing their man-hunting techniques.

Out of the Labor Force: These are women who, when pressed, will say they don’t want a relationship right now. They’re officially not in the marriage market. They cite careers, education, and lifelong singlehood as the reasons. But we know most fit the bill of the “discouraged single,” corresponding to the economist’s “discouraged worker,” who’s given up looking because “There just aren’t any men available.”

In the Labor Force: These are the employed (women who have men) and the unemployed (those willing to fess up about wanting them).

Employed: These are the attached (steady girlfriends) and married (wives) living in relationship bliss. Well, maybe not. Some economists theorize that there exists the “underemployed,” who have unfulfilling jobs with bad hours, poor working conditions, lousy pay, and irritable bosses. So we suspect that the “under-attached” also exist. Even though they appear to be out of the marriage market, they continue to give the unattached a lot of competition because they’re always on the lookout for a chance to move up.

Unemployed: These are the unattached (never married, widowed, and divorced) singles looking for Mr. Right. They spend millions on improving their human capital. (The beauty industry owe a lot to them.) They spend more time with matchmaking services than at their college career centers. They put more effort into constructing online dating profiles than they do revising their resumes. And many leave the marriage market still single, fed up with it all.

Homework Assignment:

Calculate the unemployment (unattachment) rate.
Some economists argue that singles are single because they refuse to underbid their competition (offer more for less) or settle for a less-desirable mate. Others argue that society owes single women husbands commensurate with what they believe they can offer in a marriage. Which view do you prefer?

The Duke..Mussolini, not John Wayne

2010-10-24T17:33:00.000-07:00

Over the past few months, while soliciting participants for my WWII Political Leaders Opinion Survey, I’ve been blogging about times when my path through life has inadvertently crossed these guys. I suddenly realized that not only did I know very little about Il Duce Benito Mussolini of Italy; but unlike Churchill, Hitler, Roosevelt, and Stalin, his legacy has been pretty much zilch. My life has virtually been untouched by this man. I decided some movie-watching was in order. So far I’ve watched one: Vincere (site, imdb).*

This historical drama is about Ida Dalser and her fight against the man she worshipped who literally took her for a ride. She spends the rest of her life fighting back and loses. It’s dark. It’s sad. It’s depressing. And if I were cold-hearted I’d ask, “Why does she bother?” But hormones definitely can do that to women. That was what the NWNW movement was all about. Some men are perfectly happy to take a woman’s virginity and money and run, leaving her with a kid and a difficult legal situation. At least from what I’ve been able to find, Ida Dalser was actually able to get a marriage out of him (unlike what the movie portrays). However, that didn’t do her any good when her husband was Number One Fascist and eager to avoid a bigamy charge. (Where’s the Italian Inquisition when you need it?)

Now the details: The acting was fairly convincing, even if the leading actor looked nothing like the real deal. I also really liked the use of historical footage and silent film interspersed throughout the movie. But did I enjoy the movie? Sort of. It’s not American “family friendly” by any means, so I’m not recommending it. But for me, it painted a more personal view of the dictator’s life than I’d gotten from any history textbook. He was Number One Cad.

*Netflix has this film on instant viewing, but not the documentaries. Shows you where their priorities lie.

The Search for the African Christian Tradition

2010-10-24T16:45:00.000-07:00

A few weeks back I finished reading Thomas Oden’s How African Shaped the Christian Mind: Rediscovering the African Seedbed of Western Christianity. The author claims to be presenting a case for an ancient African Christianity to encourage the growing African Christian population. Just by reading that last sentence, you’ve probably spotted the problem, as I did somewhere near the beginning of the first chapter. What does he mean by “African”?

Ancient North Africa produced many theologians (e.g., Augustine, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian), church traditions (Coptic Orthodox and Ethiopian Orthodox), and Christians of many different ethnicities (Berber/Numidian, Coptic/Egyptian, Ethiopian, Nubian, etc.). It’s a no-brainer that Christians today of any heritage should be studying the contributions and lives (especially the martyrdoms) of this region. However, Oden, playing with terminology, argues that this heritage is of particular importance to what might be called black Africa, the “Negro,” “Niger-Congo,” or “Sub-Saharan African” world. To him racial divide and social isolation don’t matter, but the modern scientific definition of “continental plate” does. Any “Africa” is “Africa” in his book, but he remains as unconvincing as if he were telling Queen Elizabeth to study her Basque heritage. Even discussing the need to translate the ancient writings into completely unrelated languages (e.g., Zulu and Swahili) should tell Oden that something’s amiss. The chronology provided in the back of the book is another clue: No members of the Niger-Congo family to be found, and I looked really, really hard.

Oden has a legitimate concern about the future of African Christianity. Islam is promoted falsely as an indigenous language compared to Christianity, which has been cast as the religion of conquest. Everything from legitimate historical research to silly works of fiction like Alex Haley’s Roots: The Saga of an American Family reiterate a Muslim legacy. An old Christian tradition has been a source of comfort for the persecuted Assyrians and Coptics, but unfortunately not everyone has the ability to draw from such a long history. However, Christianity is about tearing down walls between nations. We can take comfort from the lives of people who shared our faith and yet were of a different background, culture, ethnicity, language group, race, or social class.

What I admire are Oden’s aspirations for reviving the works of ancient “African” Christians. Sub-Saharan Africans should be able to read Augustine and Origen in their own languages just as we now have English translations widely available. I’m looking forward to seeing what The Center for Early African Christianity accomplishes over the next decades in that regard. However, we just can’t expect children in Botswana to connect with these teachings any more than children in China. It’s equally their Christian heritage. (And likely equally boring.)

Also, Oden is focusing on the past to the detriment of the present. It’s not as if there is no local Christian tradition from which Sub-Saharan Africans can draw. There’s at least two centuries if not more of converts, cultural transition, schools, and churches to discuss. Read anything written by the old Anglican bishops. Listen to the Nigerian composers of both high church and gospel music. Keep up with the controversies in Kenya and Uganda over homosexuality. And I’m speaking to the Americans here. We should be promoting the Sub-Saharan African Christian tradition that really exists instead of telling our brothers and sisters in Christ to confirm their identity in the ancient Mediterranean world. We don’t like it when the historical revisionists claim Socrates was “black.” We don’t need to be doing the same for the Early Church Fathers.

Campaign, intr. v. To avoid work

2010-10-22T19:02:00.000-07:00

This morning my mother was trying to reschedule her flight lesson. Why? Because Mr. President was at USC, campaigning for Governor Jerry Brown and Senator Barbara Boxer. So LAX, the Republican movie stars,* and all the little puddle-jumper runways in the Southland were shut down for his arrival. Now, it’s not as if I think Senator Boxer shouldn’t have her celebrity endorsements. After all, the Hewlett-Packard lady Carly Fiorina has the McCain-Palin vote. But on a general level, it bothers me that campaigning has become the number one item in every politician’s job description.

Instead of doing important things like learning how to appropriately greet foreign dignitaries, President Barack Obama is in the worst part of LA trying to convince college students not to do what they do best: avoid the voting booths. At the same time we have Congressional representatives running around saying “Vote for me again!” after proving how incompetent they are by leaving Washington before passing a budget. Really, normal people would be fired for not showing up for work. Why not them?

*For non-Southern Californian readers: I mean the John Wayne (Orange County) and Bob Hope (Burbank) airports.

Blame the Woman

2010-10-22T15:34:00.000-07:00

Flashback to Sunday School. The Bible lesson is straight forward. There’s a story with “good guys” and “bad guys.” Afterwards, there’s a verse to help us remember the good deeds the “good guys” did and encourage us to do likewise. Simple. Too simple. When are we ready for the heavy stuff (1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3)?

Recently, I read Max Lucado’s Outlive Your Life, a sixteen-point study of The Book of Acts, motivating Christians to live a more active faith. Although the lessons provided much food for thought, the author’s reliance on stories – his, his acquaintances’, and Bible characters’ – was more than a little disturbing. Of course, I spent much of my early teens listening to Bill Gothard creating a whole theology around personal testimonies, so perhaps I’m oversensitive to this approach. However, we can’t construct sound orthopraxy out of people’s behavior. Lucado doesn’t provide biblical support for the action he advocates, and it’s not as if it doesn’t exist. Even if most of his readers are “baby Christians,” I still think he could’ve provided more meat for consumption.

There’s an additional problem with the storytelling approach. Lucado, like many authors, reverts to modern retellings for emphasis. I’m of the opinion that this is an effective technique. Often the biblical culture is so far removed from ours today that the severity of a situation goes completely unnoticed. In addition, a lesson’s general applicability is missed if Christians don’t immediately recognize a modern analogous situation.

That said, modern retellings can be dangerous. It’s so easy for a misleading interpretation to creep up, especially when the author believes that it’s okay to sacrifice little details for the sake of a gripping story. Take Lucado’s version of Acts 5:1-11. Luke is obviously stressing the fact that Sapphira knew what her husband did just to rest assure the reader that she indeed deserved death too. But Lucado decides to make it her idea (p. 89). Instead of the moral of the story being “Don’t lie to the Holy Spirit” (Acts 5:9), he has inadvertently turned it into “You shouldn’t have listened to your wife,” a lesson for a different time and place (Genesis 3:17). Some might say he’s just being creative, but I think preachers least of all people should appeal to artistic license.

*This book was provided for review by BookSneeze.

Great Healer or God?

2010-10-14T18:29:00.000-07:00

My church has been recently doing a study on the life of Jesus Christ. A few weeks ago, the text was on some healings early in His ministry, recorded in Luke 5:12-26. Confronted by a paralytic, Jesus responds by declaring that the man’s sins are forgiven (v.20). Immediately the religious leaders denounce Him as a blasphemer since God is the only one with the power to forgive sins (v.21). Before healing the man, Jesus replies to His critics, “Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’?” (v. 23). Although the claim to forgive sins is greater than the claim to heal the suffering, He seems to have made a good point: that someone’s ability or inability to forgive sins is not easily proven or refuted whereas the powers to heal are more so. In short, it is easier to falsely claim to be God than to actually substantiate that claim with miracles. Yet, as Jesus’ opponents knew, the former false claim would be a serious affront to our Heavenly Father, hence their reaction in this story.

Thinking more about this made me realize how often attention is paid to those whose claims are like the ability to heal rather than like the claim of being a deity. For example, many Christians are eager to dismiss faith healers and modern-day miracle workers as quacks. Those charlatans, especially if they were on television decades ago, are a favorite conversation topic, especially among those who regret being duped once. Yet, what is the claim of God-given healing powers compared to the claim to being God? The likes of Marjoe Gortner* are more likely to come up in conversation than the Shakers’ Ann Lee, the NOI’s Wallace Fard, or members of “I’m a goddess” movements. It’s almost as if Christians ignore false claims of divinity, despite the vast numbers who are often led astray. Are we just not taking them seriously? Or is it just more fun to speculate the one-hundred-and-one ways a mega-church preacher might be faking miracles?

*By the way, language and adult subjects notwithstanding, I really enjoyed watching Marjoe, a documentary available on Netflix that was recommended awhile ago by a friend.

We’re All Americans Now!

2010-10-13T21:31:00.000-07:00

This was the last term paper I ever wrote. I enjoyed writing it, although I never got the impression that my professor was impressed. Last week, World War I came up in my lecture quite unexpectedly, when an off-the-cuff example popped into my head, and earlier today I was brainstorming ideas for a spring term course on America’s diversity. So, with a few edits and reorganization, here’s my perspective of wartime popular music. The selections were chosen from among my sheet music collection.

We’re All Americans Now!
Ethnic Unity in American Popular Song during the Great War
Intro and Vamp

During the Great War, Americanism was in, and “hyphenated Americanism” was out. People of various minority races and ethnic groups were pressured to give up overseas ties and pledge sole allegiance to American. However, many individuals found ways to show their loyalty to the United States while still expressing hints of minority identity. This essay analyzes the lyrics of popular songs that indicate this.

Verse

World War I sprung out of a broader era of nativism, racism, Jim Crow segregation, and newly established anti-immigration legislation. Racial and ethnic groups were struggling to complete in the white society for an improved existence while still maintaining their cultural identity.¹ With the United States’ entry into the war, these groups suddenly found their loyalty questioned precisely because of foreign or at least different affiliations.

The most popular statement made against “ethnicity” at the time was former President Theodore Roosevelt’s words addressed to the Knights of Columbus, a “fraternal benefit society” for Roman Catholic men,² in 1915: “There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism…[A] hyphenated American is not an American at all…Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance…” Roosevelt condemned sentiment for European countries of origin as the cause of America’s inevitable “ruin” if “hyphenization” were permitted to continue.³

Anti-war, anti-assimilation, and pro-German song, although popular early in the war, soon came under direct attack.⁴ A new pro-war song tradition took form, promoting the unification of Americans against the German enemy.⁵ Propaganda of all types were seen as key to military success and convincing – even intimidating – a populace into support.⁶ Sheet music, heard and sung by citizens, became a part of this campaign.

As is shown below, one aspect of this musical tradition promoted unification among racial and ethnic groups in terms of particular group culture. In other words, in the midst of nativist scares, popular wartime lyrics often took an approach of “cultural pluralism” to unification.⁷ Rather than erasing heritage and identity in a “melting pot,” those elements became interwoven into the framework for promoting an unassimilated Americanism. The people were called to identify with America’s mission through their own racial and ethnic heritages.

The main assumption here is that the lyrics can reveal something fundamental about popular music. Simon Frith critiques the old style academic analysis that placed too much emphasis on literary content.⁸ He argues this on two points: First, “[s]ongs…are not mostly general statements of sociological or psychological truth…[as they are]…examples of personal rhetoric.”⁹ Rather that confronting this argument, it would do well to just accept it. The musical examples discussed here could be viewed easily as individual rather than community responses to wartime. Individuals were concerned about proving their loyalty to the United States, and individuals composed and performed songs. However, that would not diminish the fact that they do recognize a grand social truth: accusations of treason were a genuine fear at that time.

Second, Frith argues, it is a mistake to assume that “the ‘content’ (or ‘meaning’) of songs as revealed by the analyst is the same as their content (or meaning) for other listeners.” He argues that “[t]here is…no firm empirical evidence that song words determine or form listeners‟ beliefs and values.”¹⁰ Surely, it is possible for analysts to credit the lyrics with greater influence over the consumers than what it really possessed. However, the argument here is not about whether or not these songs successfully promoted these messages of racial and ethnic unification but about how they seemed to have done so. It would be advantageous to do an analysis of how listeners responded to Great War musical propaganda; however, that is beyond the scope of this essay.¹¹

Here I examine of the role of popular song in American popular culture during the “Great War.” Using a small sample of sheet music, I analyze each song’s content and discuss what it reflects about American identity at that time. Central to the discussion are perceptions of American unity against hostile European powers that cross racial, ethnic, and religious boundaries. Secondary sources are used to discuss general theories about identity in popular culture, conceptions of ethnicity during the height of immigration leading up to the war, and conceptions of American culture.

Chorus

At the time of the Great War, the United States population was divided by regional, racial, ethnic, and religious ties.¹² The call for a unified America created what Glenn Watkins calls an “imagined idea of nationhood,” where these categories blurred to accommodate an all-encompassing pro-war rhetoric.¹³ Historical regional tensions had pitted North against South, East against West, and urban against rural. A successful fight against European tyranny required citizens to put an end to these divisions. “Good-Bye My Girl” is an example of the call for unification:

Our country’s call has rung out too all,
‘Tis no time to loaf or lag.
We’ve a foe to face,
Each must take his place,
As we rally ‘round the flag.
From the east and west,
We will march a-breast,
From the south and from the north,
Our battle cry Is “Win or Die”
As we go marching forth.¹⁴

This was also the message of “Where It’s Peach-Jam Makin‟ Time,” a song about “Yankee”¹⁵ comrades from Maine, the West, and the South talking about their homes.¹⁶ Although the Civil War had created a persistent riff between Northerner and Southerners, the experience of the Spanish-American War and the Great War provided a common enemy to divert attention.¹⁷ Songs such as “Forward, March! Mississippi Volunteers”¹⁸ and “The Dixie Volunteers,”¹⁹ praising the sons of “Dixie,” encouraged soldiers to fight as Americans but also as Southerners, proud of their heritage. The line “It’s a Long, Long Way to Dixie” was followed by “and the good old U.S.A.,” broadening the context of missing home.²⁰

Particularly, “When the Boys from Dixie Eat the Melon on the Rhine” makes for an interesting study.²¹ Its text praises the expected victory of Southern Americans in Europe, making connections to their perceived ante-bellum heritage. What is also interesting is the cover, featuring black children eating giant watermelons. It raises questions about just who are the “boys” who will do the eating when the war is over. Although an argument could be made for the glorification of whites in the song, it could also be in part mocking the Germans, making the implication that poor little black boys will share in the victory over them.²²

The “Afro-American” or “Negro” community, as did many immigrant groups, had become the target of military intelligence operations, seeking to uncover anti-American sentiment. In response, and also in hopes of gaining more respect and privileges in the white American society, many blacks joined the call to arms against Germany.²³ Songs such as “When the Good Lord Makes a Record of a Hero’s Deed, He Draws No Color Line” also drew on perceptions of historical and spiritual heritage to invoke a sense of duty:

Your Granddad did his duty in the Civil war
He fell by his master’s side.
Your daddy bravely did his bit at San Juan Hill,
You know that’s where he died.
So I know that you will do your duty too,
And remember, son of mine,
When the good Lord makes a record of a hero’s deed,
He draws no color line.²⁴

Foreigners, of course, were primary suspects of disloyalty, due to their threatening alliance with European countries. When Russian-born Irving Berlin and two cowriters quickly joined the budding the pro-war movement, they wrote a song a la Roosevelt called “Let’s All Be Americans Now”²⁵:

It’s up to you!
What will you do?
England or France may have your sympathy,
Or Germany, But you’ll agree
That, now is the time,
To fall in line,
You swore that you would so be true to your vow,
Let’s all be Americans now.²⁶

In this chorus, as in Roosevelt’s speech, loyalties even to allied countries were a perceived threat. However, that does not imply that non-mainstream ethnic and religious identities were excluded from participating.²⁷

Roman Catholicism, a prime target for nativist sentiments, runs ramped in pro-war song, often as a reassuring balm to sooth wounded soldiers. Two extremely popular songs from that era, “A Soldier’s Rosary”²⁸ and “There’s an Angel Missing from Heaven (She’ll Be Found Somewhere Over There),”²⁹ create a universalistic representation of the Rosary.

Jewish identity is not very evident. However, it is noteworthy to mention that many of the writers, such as the famed Irving Berlin, were Jewish and promoted unification through music, hence some ethnic participation. One slight clue of ethnic promotion, however, is in the extremely popular song “How ‘Ya Gonna Keep ‘Em Down on the Farm (After They’ve Seen Paree?).” The use of the Jewish name “Reuben,” although it might be meaningless, does hint at the Jewish community’s contribution to the war.³⁰

Not to be left out of the discussion are the American Indians. Songs actually written by members of this group were not available for this study. However, the mention of them in popular songs for white audiences does indicate an assumption on the part of the creators that Indians should play a part in the war against Germany. “Indianola,” arguably a racist portrayal of these people, promotes the idea that traditional Indian terror, once aimed at whites, should be redirected towards the Kaiser.³¹ In contrast, the lighthearted “Green River” appeals to “rich-man, poor-man, beggar-man, thief, doctor, lawyer, Indian chief” to support Prohibition as an anti-German campaign.³² Even as an object of ridicule and the supreme image of non-assimilation, the American Indian is portrayed as a participant in this amalgamation.³³

Coda

The racial and ethnic unification was short-lived, if it could be said to have ever truly existed at all. The post-war years of 1919 and 1920 brought numerous race riots, as friction between blacks and whites increased. Nativist sentiment culminated with the successful passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, establishing quotas to restrict the arrival of undesired Eastern and Southern Europeans. However, in a sense, the musical propaganda of the Great War was not created to bring to an end conflicts that arose in the previous century. Its goal was to foster a united front for the war effort, and for that reason alone it might be labeled a success.

End Notes

1 See Eleanor Alexander, “The Courtship Season: Love Race, and Elite African American Women at the Turn of the Twentieth Century” OAH Magazine of History 18, no. 4 (July 2004): 17-19; Karen Brodkin, How Jews Became White Folks & What That Says About Race in America (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2002); Iris Chang, The Chinese in America: A Narrative History (New York: Penguin Books, 2003); Jennifer Guglielmo and Salvatore Salerno, eds. Are Italians White? How Race is Made in America (New York: Routledge, 2003); and Noel Ignatiev, How the Irish Became White (New York: Routledge, 1996).
2 Knights of Columbus, accessed June 13, 2008.
3 Theodore Roosevelt, Address to the Knights of Columbus in New York City (October 12, 1915), accessed June 12, 2008.
4 Glenn Watkins, Proof through the Night: Music and the Great War (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), 245-251.
5 Watkins, 251-255.
6 Regina M. Sweeney, Singing Our Way to Victory (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 2001), 2-4. There exists additional literature on home-front pessimism and military moral not consulted at this time.
7 Of course, this idea would not hold for all Great War song, but it is the argument for the small sample discussed here. Horace Kallen initially promoted this concept of “cultural pluralism.” See Josh Kun, Audiotopia: Music, Race, and America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), 41-47, and David R. Roediger, Working Toward Whiteness: How America's Immigrants Became White: The Strange Journey from Ellis Island to the Suburbs (New York: Basic Books, 2006).
8 Simon Frith, Performing Rites: On the Value of Popular Music (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), 159.
9 Frith, 163.
10 Frith, 164.
11 Further research might delve into sales and performance records and other sources of information that would indicate popularity. Frith’s discussion about “ideas” (lyrical content) versus “expression” (performance style) is also beyond this essay, but also would be relevant.
12 Political division is obvious and not of interest here. See Watkins for a discussion of conflicting anti-war and pro-war sentiments.
13 Watkins, 282. This idea is similar to the concept of “imagined communities,” in which members create a national identity through identifying as a group. See Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, New Edition (New York: Verso, 2006).
14 “Good-Bye My Girl,” words by Captain Paul Allister, music by Margarey McKinney (New York: M. Witmark & Sons, 1918).
15 Note the universal application of an originally limited identity.
16 “Where It’s Peach-Jam Makin’ Time,” by Kendis & Brockman and Nat Vincent (New York: Kendis-Brockman Music Co. Inc., 1918).
17 Watkins, 283.
18 “Forward, March! Mississippi Volunteers,” words by Robert Levenson, music by George L. Cobb (Boston: Walter Jacobs, 1917).
19 “The Dixie Volunteers,” by Edgar Leslie and Harry Ruby (New York: Waterson, Berlin, & Snyder Co., 1917).
20 “It’s a Long, Long way to Dixie,” words by Tell Taylor, music by Earl K. Smith (Chicago: Music Pub. Inc., 1917).
21 “When the Boys from Dixie Eat the Melon on the Rhine,” words by Alfred Bryan, music by Ernest Breuer, (New York: Maurice Richmond Music Co. Inc., 1918).
22 That seems to be reading too much into the purpose of the artwork, but mockery is a fundamental element of musical propaganda.
23 Wray R. Johnson, “Black American Radicalism and the First World War: The Secret Files of the Military Intelligence Division,” Armed Forces and Society 26, no. 1 (1990): 27-56.
24 “When the Good Lord Makes a Record of a Hero’s Deed, He Draws No Color Line,” words by Val Trainor, music by Harry De Costa (New York: M. Witmark & Sons, 1918).
25 Watkins, 251.
26 “Let’s All Be Americans Now,” by Irving Berlin, Edgar Leslie, and Geo. W. Meyer (New York: Waterson, Berlin, & Snyder Co., 1917).
27 Of those easily available for analysis in this essay, Irish-American popular songs, although there were plenty in existence in this time period, did not deal directly with the issue of war. So, unfortunately, they, as a subgroup, had to be left out of the present discussion.
28 “A Soldier’s Rosary,” lyric by J. E. Dempsey, music by Joseph A. Burke (New York: A. J. Stasny Music Co., 1918).
29 “There’s an Angel Missing from Heaven (She’ll Be Found Somewhere Over There),” lyric by Paul B. Armstrong, music by Robert Speroy (New York: Frank K. Root & Co., 1918).
30 “How ‘Ya Gonna Keep ‘Em Down on the Farm (After They’ve Seen Paree?),” words by Sam M. Lewis and Joe Young, music by Walter Donaldson (New York: Waterson, Berlin & Snyder Co., 1919). Further research might lend itself to better examples.
31 “Indianola,” English lyric by Frank H. Warren, French lyric by C. Hélène Barker, music by S. R. Henry and D. Onivas (New York: Jos. W. Stern & Co., 1918).
32 “Green River,” words by Eddie Cantor, music by Van and Schenck, arranged by Jean Walz (Chicago: Schoenhofen Co., 1920).
33 In the most optimistic sense, this could be interpreted as an early attempt at “cultural interaction.” See Peter La Chapelle, Proud to Be an Okie: Cultural Politics, County Music, and Migration to Southern California (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), 44.

The Extra-Parental Natures of God

2010-10-10T16:19:00.000-07:00

Generally, when we Christians think of earthly analogies to our relationship with God, Bible passages portraying God as a loving father and faithful, but often betrayed, husband. Those images are so common that others can be overlooked. Here I discuss two parental roles that extend God beyond the position of a father.

God as a Caring Mother

No, this isn’t an argument for “Goddess” theology. Instead I'm arguing that God our Father identifies with maternal characteristics. We get some insight on this when Jesus Christ laments over His people, doomed for distruction, in Matthew 23:37 (ESV):

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not![”]

Christ’s longing to take care of the Jews as a hen wants to care for her young is similar to the phrasing used in Isaiah 49:14-15 (ESV):

But Zion said, “The LORD has forsaken me; my Lord has forgotten me.”
“Can a woman forget her nursing child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb?
Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you.[”]

God is comparing Himself to a nursing mother. We have an excellent example of what that entails in 1 Kings 3:16-28 (ESV):

Then two prostitutes came to the king and stood before him. The one woman said, “Oh, my lord, this woman and I live in the same house, and I gave birth to a child while she was in the house. Then on the third day after I gave birth, this woman also gave birth. And we were alone. There was no one else with us in the house; only we two were in the house. And this woman’s son died in the night, because she lay on him. And she arose at midnight and took my son from beside me, while your servant slept, and laid him at her breast, and laid her dead son at my breast. When I rose in the morning to nurse my child, behold, he was dead. But when I looked at him closely in the morning, behold, he was not the child that I had borne.” But the other woman said, “No, the living child is mine, and the dead child is yours.” The first said, “No, the dead child is yours, and the living child is mine.” Thus they spoke before the king.

Then the king said, “The one says, ‘This is my son that is alive, and your son is dead’; and the other says, ‘No; but your son is dead, and my son is the living one.’” And the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So a sword was brought before the king. And the king said, “Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one and half to the other.” Then the woman whose son was alive said to the king, because her heart yearned for her son, “Oh, my lord, give her the living child, and by no means put him to death.” But the other said, “He shall be neither mine nor yours; divide him.” Then the king answered and said, “Give the living child to the first woman, and by no means put him to death; she is his mother.” And all Israel heard of the judgment that the king had rendered, and they stood in awe of the king, because they perceived that the wisdom of God was in him to do justice.

So in a prostitute we can see the sort of compassion God has for His people. It’s self-sacrificial, and has the infant’s best interest at heart. And it’s the sort of love only a mother could have.

God as a Protective Father-in-Law

When a union is discussed, generally, God is portrayed in the Old Testament as a jipped bridegroom, a husband whose wife (his people collectively) has been unfaithful in keeping her marriage covenant. But in Malachi 2:10-16 (ESV) we get an additional perspective:

Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers? Judah has been faithless, and abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem. For Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the LORD, which he loves, and has married the daughter of a foreign god. May the LORD cut off from the tents of Jacob any descendant of the man who does this, who brings an offering to the LORD of hosts!

And this second thing you do. You cover the LORD’s altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. “For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.”

Here, God is a witness to a symbolic marriage between the husband Judah and his bride. Judah commits adultery by being unfaithful to this wife and marrying someone else (Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11, Luke 16:18).

Why is God like an irate father-in-law? The first marriage seems to have been conducted in God’s house (Malachi 2:11). While intermarrying signifies union and acceptance between families or nations, refusing to intermarry means there’s separation and rejection (e.g., Genesis 34, Judges 21, Nehemiah 13). Malachi clearly discusses an alliance with God being broken in exchange for an alliance with a foreign god. These alliances are represented through the marriage covenants with their respective daughters.

We can understand God’s feelings by looking at Jacob's father-in-law Laban’s words in Genesis 31:50 (ESV):

If you oppress my daughters, or if you take wives besides my daughters, although no one is with us, see, God is witness between you and me."

Like Laban, God is a protective father-in-law, taking responsibility for insuring that the union in His house is not profained. Just as a bride’s father comes to her aid against a wicked husband bent on distroying her reputation (Deuteronomy 22:13-21), God rejects Judah’s offerings and petitions as punishment for his misconduct.

Preparing for Singlehood

2010-10-07T20:52:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading Women of Faith speaker Lisa Harper’s new book, Untamed: How the Wild Side of Jesus Frees Us to Live and Love with Abandon. Although Harper briefly mentions still being single while in her forties, this isn’t a “book for singles.” Her focus is on Christ’s passionate love for His people (p. 83). But something heart-wrenching stood out to me when she talks about the lessons she learned from her stepfather (p. 90):

My final exam in gender inequity took place about ten years later when he said he wouldn’t spend one dime on my college tuition because most women who went to college just got married and had babies and never ended up using their degrees anyway…[H]e didn’t think I needed to be educated past high school.

Harper used this story to segue into a discussion about Jesus’ unconventional approach to the treatment of women, but her singleness was fresh in my mind. Here was a girl who was refused higher education because it was assumed that she’d marry immediately. Instead, she’s now remained single all these years. Now, Harper has advanced degrees and a successful career, so I’m not about to turn her into a hard-luck story. But her situation perfectly illustrates the problem of not preparing young women for singlehood.

History is littered with the lives of women who were unable to find a husband for a variety of reasons. Fortunately, today we don’t have to suffer under the same conditions or rely on the charity of others. We can support ourselves. And higher education, for all its flaws, allows many women to make a comfortable living and even support their parents when necessary. Who would not wish that sort of future for an unmarried woman?

Perhaps I’m fortunate to have a father who has always been concerned about his wife’s and daughters’ ability to fend for themselves if the need ever arose. Sure, it’s much more fun to plan a future wedding, but no one can guarantee it will ever happen. Every generation has had its spinsters. Setting a woman up for financial failure unless she snags a man is a serious risk, and many women have had to pay the cost.

I’ve known men who’ve told me with a straight face that they won’t consider a college-degreed woman as a perspective wife. They reason that she obviously wants a career instead of a family. It saddens me that these men ignore my case and the case of other women they know: all women who dreamed of being homemakers yet found themselves in the workforce, likely for life. They pass over sweet young women I believe would make them wonderful mates, evident in part by their determination to “be prepared” for the unexpected. The end result is instead something like a self-fulfilling prophecy: These women who carefully pursue an education as insurance against being poor old maids then find themselves old maids because of that education.

*This book was provided for review by the WaterBrook Multnomah Publishing Group. A review has been submitted on Amazon.com.

To Cheat, Lie, and Steal…and Get Away with It

2010-10-05T10:48:00.000-07:00

Last night, I saw the new documentary Catfish (site, imdb). Three geeky guys and a crazy mystery were enough to raise my curiosity. Over all, I enjoyed it. It remained light and funny as the story about the fake identities unraveled. It also could serve as a wake-up call about the danger of internet relationships and of making personal information public and, therefore, available for use by the public.

There has been debate about whether or not the events in the film are genuine. After the showing, I overheard one viewer argue with another about actors not being able to fake being in love. (I agree.) And on my way to the parking lot, I overheard someone else pointing out an inconsistency between one character’s portrayal in the film and what was said about him during the Q&A. There were also a lot of questions about shots that were too perfect or events that were too coincidental.

Without any hard evidence to the contrary, I’m inclined to believe that the story’s real. Documentaries in general end up bending and morphing the truth anyway. What bothered me was the filmmakers’ decision leave out information that would make the story more coherent and convincing to naysayers. After the showing, Nev Schulman, the leading geek, discussed the reasons why his brother took up the project initially and chose to continue filming. Not including that in the movie is asking the audience to question it’s spontaneity.

Also, it was a bad decision to leave out the after-the-fact interviews of Schulman’s mom, friend, and the model Aimee Gonzales, whose physical identity was stolen. Why should we not see these people hurt, furious, and trying to readjust their lives? It was almost as if nothing was included to make Angela Wesselman-Pierce, the mastermind of sorts, look bad.

Someone in the audience asked who the victim was. Really, it shouldn’t be the woman who lied her way into the spotlight. Anyone who has felt deceived when meeting an online correspondent, anyone who has had to deal with identity theft, really anyone could be offended by this. Maybe Schulman doesn’t feel as though he has really been hurt. It’s not like she scammed him out of thousands of dollars. But that doesn’t make what she did to him or others okay. Maybe he feels sorry for her unsuccessful attempts to promote her art. But the world is full of honest artists, and we don’t see him helping their careers.

Real or fake, the documentary portrays a woman who’ll play any untrue sympathy card – an alcoholic daughter, cancer treatment, and a burdensome, unfulfilling life – to get out of taking responsibility for her actions. The whole thing about her unrealized potential and the hardship of caring for her disabled stepsons was ridiculous. She has a caring husband who thinks that people should follow their dreams regardless and who went to all the trouble to give her space and time away from the children to pursue her work. Instead, Schulman essentially holds her husband responsible for “setting her up” for an online affair. Really, the image of a woman eager to sign release forms for a rather embarrassing film tells me that she had to only be interested in the publicity. And Schulman’s expressed regret that people would send her nasty emails is laughable. Why didn’t she expect that?

Identity theft of any form is a serious crime. Treating people’s hearts like dirt by awaking them emotionally and sexually to love under false pretenses of any kind is a serious sin.* I think that Nev Schulman is more of a victim than he actually realizes. He forgave her and tried to help her, and she tried again to build a relationship with him through a phony alcoholic daughter. Now he’s proud that she’s made money off her paintings from the movie? No, the moral of the story isn’t that we should be careful on Facebook. It’s that we can use the internet for evil purposes, get caught, and still expect to get away with it.

*Why is it that a young woman’s a “tease” if she gets a man’s hopes up with no intent of following through with any promises, but when an older woman does this, she’s a martyr looking for fulfillment?

Thou Shalt Not Prooftext?

2010-10-03T23:57:00.000-07:00

That my earlier post on “missionary dating” resulted in some debate came as no surprise. What did surprise me, however, was the complaint about me “prooftexting.” Lately, I’ve seen some online debate about this, but never took it seriously until now.

“Prooftexting” merely involves using verses to support arguments, and that might or mightn’t result in verses being taken out of their proper context. Most of the time, I believe the charge of “prooftexting” is a “red herring” (an attempt to distract the opponent from the real issue at hand). Jesus Christ and the devil “prooftexted” their way through a debate (Matthew 4:1-11, Luke 4:1-12). I could point out the numerous times when Christ “prooftexted” to the Jewish leaders and scholars and when the Apostle Paul “prooftexted” to the recipients of his Epistles…but that would require “prooftexting.” The second century Christian writers and everyone since have continued the “prooftexting” tradition. In my opinion, there’s little evidence to support an argument that “prooftexting” per se is bad.

Getting back to my original post: What needed to be discussed was whether or not a command not to enter “unequally-yoked” marriages can be inferred from 2 Corinthians 6:14. Instead of just questioning that interpretation many Christians hold, the commenter made “prooftexting” the issue. I’m all for a reevaluation of that verse in light of the broader passage, but (as the commenter’s own arguments proved) that’s going to take a lot of legitimate “prooftexting.” We have no other means of building a scriptural argument.

The Emperor’s New Art

2010-10-01T18:24:00.000-07:00

Art is frightening. As Paul Fussell argues ad nauseum in his infamous Class: A Guide Through the American Status System, the middle class thrives on being perceived as well-educated. Admitting to not understanding or appreciating art is a sure way of losing social status in the eyes of other art illiterates. The safest bet is to just purchase museum memberships and walk quickly past the blank canvases towards the free food. Trusting the experts to define “art” and determine “value” is a lot easier than bothering to develop an informed opinion and risking making a fool of oneself. But why do we allow art institutions to dictate what should be personal preference? It’s because we’re continuously allowing them to make the decisions for us. In Museum Legs: Fatigue and Hope in the Face of Art, Amy Whitaker brings this up (p. 32):

In the case of artworks that most elicit a speechless “What the …?”, why does the museum choose to own them? And what are the grounds for the visitor’s confidence in the museum’s judgment? It seems that the viewer’s trust in the museum is the springboard for the museum’s educational mission. Trust is what makes the viewer patient. As if a principle of physics, the steadier the base, the further the cantilever can extend, meaning the greater the center of gravity of trust, the greater the range of comfort with experimentation and uncomfortably new art.

So, it’s like “give them an inch, and they’ll walk all over you,” except that we end up thanking, and paying, them for it. Whitaker goes on to compare the public’s trust in art galleries with their trust in government agencies. This makes a lot of sense. If no one believed that property rights would be upheld in court, or if no one was willing to use legal tender backed by the “full faith and credit” of the Federal government, economic activity would decline significantly. In the same way, if no one trusted the judgment of curators and museum directors, much of the art world’s economy – fundraising, grant writing, and patronizing – would grind to a halt. The whole museum industry depends on consumer confidence in that what they’re looking at really matters.

Last Sunday MOCA closed its Dennis Hopper: Double Standard exhibition. Keep in mind that, at the same time, the gallery was filled with such important artworks as a spinning office chair, a desecrated baby grand, and an automated spray paint gun shaped as a decapitated hand. In comparison, the eclectic collection of the actor’s work was simply refreshing. Yet, I had to questioned whether it too belonged there.

Hopper seems to have been an amateur and patron of the arts in the best sense of each word. He dabbled at a bit of everything, interacted with the art and photography greats of his day, and promoted popular and street art. His black-and-white photographs ooze with nostalgia, certainly gallery-worthy even if only for historical interest. The rest of the exhibit I could’ve done without.

At least a half dozen times, the MOCA docent referenced Hopper befriending and copying someone else’s techniques. In the music world, people are known to experiment with others’ dance beats and compose styles of music they haven’t yet mastered. Here was someone adventurous and with the means to try his hand at making art. Perhaps copying is the highest form of flattery. But unlike his mentors, Andy Warhol and Marcel Duchamp, Hopper hasn’t been credited with originality.

What are we to make of an autographed hotel sign: Hotel Green (Entrance) (1963)? A bigger-than-life model of a switch: Bomb Drop (1967-1968/2000)? What about graffiti canvases created by gang members and wall-to-wall paintings constructed by billboard artists? Is that really his work? Although Hopper’s noted for his wonderful photography, I even began to suspect the genuineness of what he captured after the docent explained that his well-liked Biker Couple (1961/2000) was not depicting real life, as the public had previously been led to believe, but a scene from a Hollywood movie.

Leaving the decision to the recognized authorities (e.g., MOCA’s director), we’d have to conclude that all this is museum-quality art. Maybe it’s time for a revolt.

Christian Carnival II – September 29, 2010

2010-09-29T09:14:00.000-07:00

Since the inception of this blog, I’ve been participating in the Christian Carnival II Blog Carnival, and for the first time, I’m hosting it. Thanks to everyone who contributed and waited patiently for my Pacific Time Zone posting. Here is this week’s blog list in a not-so-randomly generated order:

“The Lost Proverb: Where are all the True Men?”
Great question. First up is this amusing retelling of Proverbs 31 on PB Jung, submitted by Peter Jung, a new member of the group. I’m not too keen on the idea of having competition in the kitchen: “He is like a professional chef preparing exquisite dishes and selecting choice wines, he gets his ingredients from afar.” But I predict my sister will like this new version: “He exercises (self control), he girds himself with strength (spiritual, mental, physical) and makes his abs flat.”

“Fear and Loathing in America the Beautiful”
Over at Funny about Money, the author of this post discusses her puzzlement over her father’s bigotry and coming to an understanding about his fears real and imagined.

“Lost in the Weeds”
Having only ever seen about 10 minutes of the Showtime series Weeds, I found Dave Taylor’s review over on Inside the Fish very informative. It made me wonder if the show is essentially doing for marijuana what Will & Grace did for homosexuality. The election’s closing in on us, you know…

“Don’t Be a Fish While Fishing”
Andrew, from Rely on God in Your Personal Development, takes an unusual point of view on the devil as a “fisher of men.”

“Copan on the Canaanite Genocide”
Parableman Jeremy Pierce joins in a web-wide discussion about morality, divinely-ordered genocide, and the Israelite conquest of Canaan. I’ll have to find time to go back and read the others’ posts to catch up on the details.

“Life is Beautiful”
On And She Went Out..., Michelle talks about life and the special meaning Psalm 91 now has for her.

“Jewish Thoughts on Wealth”
Free Money Finance offers a short critique of The Jewish Phenomenon: Seven Keys to the Enduring Wealth of a People by Steven Silbiger, a book that contrasts New Testament discussions about wealth with medieval Jewish teachings.

“Psalm 145 - The Missing Nun”
Dust always makes me wish I could figure out how to learn Hebrew. This post, part of Bob MacDonald’s series on the Oxford Psalms Conference (September 22-24, 2010), tackles the Masoretic text’s “missing nun verse” that the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Peshitta, and other manuscripts have intact.

“What Do I Identify With Too Much?”
A Clay Pot’s Crystal Rodli writes about “giving it all up” for Christ. How this type of sacrifice affected Paul’s identity is something I realized I hadn’t thought about much before.

“10 Ways To Encourage Your Minister Today”
On Money Help For Christians, Craig Ford discusses some of the stress and discouragement church leaders face and how might we as members of their congregations improve things. Tip no. 4 cuts to the chase: “Ask your minister, ‘What are two things we could be doing differently as a church to minister to you?’”

“Friday Reflection: Trevor and Love”
Take a look at the simple but profound wisdom from a comic strip on My Jarrol Spot. Deano tries to put God’s powerful love in proper perspective.

“Contentment”
At Who Am I?, Barry Wallace looks to the Puritans for a better understanding of Christian contentment.

“The Thunderous Sound of Praise!”
LOSWL on INSPIKS talks about W2W Soul’s 100 Days Praise Challenge.

“Scarabs and Sheep”
Discussing how non-Christians try to shame us out of Christianity, Scottyi, on Sacred Raisin Cakes, looks at how the dung beetle can actually be a positive description. Anyone up to appropriating the image?

“My GPS”
On Ridge’s Blog, Ridge Burns talks about allowing God’s Word to steer you in the right direction.

“Potiphar’s Wife”
Russ White, from Thinking in Christ, looks at the connection between lust and anger using the Bible’s most famous seductress as an example. This was a timely read for me, since I’ve recently read the Qu’ran’s version of the story, which paints this woman in a more positive light.

“What’s Your Goliath?”
Kaleb from W2W Soul “interviews” David about his experience and having faith in God’s power to destroy the enemy.

“Democrats in Trouble, Republicans the Answer?”
At Random Musings on Anything and Everything from a Biblical Worldview, Chris Price responds to common arguments given for supporting Republicans in political office. In response, I’d ask, how do we set about “cleaning house” since Christians refusing to vote for major party candidates doesn’t seem to be getting us anywhere.

“When ‘Equally Yoked’ Really Isn’t”
After all of that, if you still have some time, please contribute your thoughts on my recent post addressing the “missionary dating” fad.

Hwyl fawr.

When in Boredom, Talk about the Weather

2010-09-27T17:21:00.000-07:00

Around noon today, I was running some errands, and had a bit of trouble getting out of the bank’s parking lot. Why? Because two men from the office building nearby were standing in the middle of the driveway, one snapping pictures of the bank’s giant digital clock. Maybe they’d never seen triple digits in OC before. But we’ve certainly been feeling them lately.

To me, it’s Phoenix that will always be the “Sun's Anvil.” I think it was during our 1994 family roadtrip, hanging out with my dad’s uncle and aunt, that’s torched into my mind. We were leaving the Pizza Hut – you know, the old pizzeria kind that went extinct? – and I’ll never forget seeing across the street the 111 complete with a pretty sunset backdrop. Yes, it was 111 degrees at 7:15 PM.

But we have our fair share of miserable weather here in So Cal. I remember a particularly hot August years ago during my tenure in the Pacific Chorale. There was a last minute need for more participants in the PSO’s September 11 concert. I volunteered since I like singing Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony (even though my German hasn’t improved much since I was three, as I’ve blogged about before). The dress rehearsal was on location at the outdoor Verizon Wireless Amphitheater.* The heat was terrible, and the big white digital clock by the director’s stand was a constant reminder just how terrible.

It seemed like every two seconds we took a minute break and just sat there. I asked another alto what was wrong. Three or four replied that the musicians, upset about playing in 100+-degree heat, had lobbied to get the breaks into their contracts. So with temperature fluctuating between 98 and 101 degrees Fahrenheit, and a union representative onstage, we had to stop every time it broke 100. Me? I would’ve asked for 90.

*Yes, that’s its real name, and yes, there’s more than one of them.

When “Equally Yoked” Really Isn’t

2010-09-25T21:57:00.000-07:00

Every so often, someone suggests, sometimes jokingly, sometimes seriously, “missionary dating” as a solution to my ongoing singleness. For those who might be unfamiliar with this concept, it usually refers to the active attempt to convert someone through some sort of romantic relationship. As a ministry strategy, it has a number of problems, especially since many a new convert has found himself or herself unexpectedly dumped as the “missionary” begins a relationship with another lost soul. That’s “defrauding” at its worst.

However, there’s another form, often promoted as a marriage strategy. The official “dating” may take place after the conversion, but the central goal of the believer is to turn someone of choice into an approved prospective spouse. My own parents’ relationship began somewhat similarly, and there are no doubt other successful conversion-marriage pairings. However, in general, I would not recommend this approach. Here’s why not.

The idea of two Christian individuals being “equally yoked” in marriage is grounded on the Apostle Paul’s instructions in 2 Corinthians: 6:14 (ESV):

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

During Old Testament times, there was concern that an unbelieving spouse would lead a believer away from God (Exodus 34:15-16, Deuteronomy 7:3-4, 1 Kings 11:4, Ezra 10:18-44, Nehemiah 13:25-27). This still concerns believers today, as weaker Christians agree to support their spouses’ religious preferences and have their children raised Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. First-century Christians were taught to remain with their unbelieving spouses in hopes of converting them (1 Corinthians 7:10-16, 1 Peter 3:1-6). However, even then, it was deemed better to end the marriage if the spouse was unwilling. One’s loyalty was to God was more important than family relationships (Deuteronomy 13:6-8, Micah 7:6, Matthew 10:35). The uncomfortable truth is that, when it comes to someone’s relationship with God, there is no middle ground (Matthew 12:30, Mark 9:40, Luke 11:23); you and your spouse must be on His side (John 14:6-7). Uniting with an unbeliever becomes a sort of treason.

Today, devoted Christians are passionate about being “equally yoked,” so much so that there’s an online dating service with that as its name. However, this commitment has led to problems finding desirable spouses. Religiously-mixed marriages are prohibited, but the plain truth is that many Christians just aren’t attracted to each other.* So many feel that the best solution is to lead someone more suitable to Christ. (Note the words “more suitable”!)

As mentioned earlier, the official “dating” may take place after conversion to avoid the appearance of disobeying Paul’s instruction, but the ministry is carried out with the goal of marriage in mind. This is essentially cheating. It’s an attempt to find a loophole in God’s Law. It’s “following the letter” while neglecting the “spirit” of the Word, as Jesus Christ accused the Pharisees of doing (Mark 2:3-28; 3:1-6). Just like people back then would dedicate their possessions to service for God to avoid supporting their needy parents (Mark 7:9-13), I believe that Christians are converting desired partners to get out of marrying someone who could truly bare the same yoke.

Now, I’m not suggesting that none of these conversions are genuine (although I’ve seen cases that have proven not to be). I’m also not suggesting that a long-time Christian can’t marry a new believer. What concerns me is the newly-converted spouse’s potential dependence on the other. We’ve all seen it happen: The youth pastor or mega-church preacher who struggles in sin or wrestles with unbelief. And many previously led to Christ weaver or even abandon the faith because it relied on the support of a fallible man. Individual converts carry the same risks.

I’m of the opinion that “equally yoked” must mean that one’s spouse can stand on his or her own two feet spiritually. When a Christian stumbles, a spouse who’s a mature Christian or a new Christian brought to the Lord by someone else would be more capable of bearing the burden. However, a stumbling Christian might easily pull his or her own convert down too. That’s particularly a serious risk when the spouse hasn’t been a Christian very long at all. Yet this sort of “missionary dating” pushes quickly towards its marriage goal, not allowing much time for a “baby Christian” to grow on his or her own or learn from other Christians.

Another problem is the whole idea of fashioning one’s spouse. Everyone knows women are eager to make-over men, and men are notorious for targeting impressionable women and women from “more submissive cultures” in hopes of creating their own devotee. It’s no wonder then that people would desire a spiritually-dependant spouse whose beliefs and views can be easily swayed, a spouse who’ll cower to another’s claims of seniority. In other words, “missionary dating” takes on a sinister, self-serving nature. Rather than working out a relationship with another believer, which might require compromise and admitting that the other is correct, the Christian seeks out someone who can be controlled. In any dispute, “I led you to Christ, so know more about the Bible than you do” is likely to make a covert appearance.

From what I can see, “missionary dating” as a marriage strategy should be a last resort…such as if there were just two humans left on earth, and the Christian didn’t care to make an exception. “Missionary dating” just can’t produce an “equally-yoked” marriage if one spouse’s faith is dependent on the other’s. What’s worse is that, by doing this “mission” work, the “minister” shows no genuine concern for the lost. Expected marital benefits, not joy of seeing someone saved, is the primary motivating factor for making the disciple.

We Christians don’t need to preach to our future spouses. We need to preach to the world. If every person engaged in “missionary dating” spent even half the effort trying to convert relatives, friends, coworkers, and others, we’d see revivals like never before. And as the number of new Christians grew, no doubt, there would be increasingly more potential spouses available anyway. Then a believer looking for one to marry could find one spiritually-independent and capable of bearing the same burden.

*In Christian circles, however, it isn’t “politically correct” to say this. So if you don’t fancy a brother or sister in Christ who approaches you, it’s recommended that you instead accuse them of being “desperate,” “forward,” or “impure.” They’ll eventually go away.

Communicating Love

2010-09-23T21:07:00.000-07:00

When a friend of mine handed me her copy of Gary Chapman’s The Five Love Languages, Singles Edition and told me to take the “quiz,” I thought she was crazy. If there’s anything I detest it’s a psychological test. Yes, many were developed from anti-Christian theories and constructed to force complex humans into neat little categories. However, my strongest complaint is that, instead of using these as helpful tools for identifying personality traits and analyzing behavior, I’ve known many people who treat them as infallible tests, producing the absolute truth rather than a generalization and even having the capability of identifying “spiritual gifts.” But Chapman’s “love language” categories seemed to have a more practical function, based on empirical observation rather than constructed to fit some sort of mass program. It also helped that he doesn’t have a degree in Psychology…

At any rate, I took the quiz. My friend wasn’t surprised by the rankings:

1. Physical Touch
2. Quality Time
3. Acts of Service
4. Words of Affirmation
5. Receiving Gifts

After thinking about what I tend to expect and desire from those I interact with, I realized that the outcome appeared rather accurate. And taking the test made me think more about what others expected and desired and how they differed from me. It made me more sensitive to how my hugginess was a turn-off for many people, and motivated me to start praising and complimenting them instead. I tried to look for clues as to what people really wanted rather than what I would want in the same situation.

As for my own needs, I did expect a change as I aged and shifted my goals away from an intimate relationship and towards family relationships and friendships. Today, almost two years later, I retook the online version of the singles’ quiz, and compared with the previous one. Exactly the same ranking, although the scores are further apart now. Before #1 and #2 were fairly close and lower, and #4 and #5 had the exact same higher score. Now the distribution is spread evenly across the spectrum. Looks like I’m becoming more set in my ways as I’m getting older. I’ll have to take the test again in another two years and see what happens then.

A New Statistic

2010-09-21T21:00:00.000-07:00

No doubt I’ll make some enemies saying this, but I think Sex and the City was a terrible and extremely depressing television show. Yet I’ll forever be grateful for its offspring, the relationship self-help book He’s Just Not That into You and its key message: “You’re not the exception.” If I’d learned that lesson fifteen years ago, I might have been spared considerable heartache and frustration. And if today’s young girls, especially African American girls, learn it now, then they might save themselves from heartache, frustration, and the trap of baby-mama-dom.

No one likes being a statistic. They’re everywhere, and you’ve probably heard them: Low marriage rates. High abuse rates. High clinical abortion rates. High unwed pregnancy rates. High rates of STD contraction. If you’re anything like me, your instinctive reaction is to think positively and reject the doomsday prophecies about your future. You believe in your heart that Mr. Imperfect will change for the better. Maybe he doesn’t like you, so you bend over backwards and do headstands to please him. Maybe he says he doesn’t want to marry you, but you know that once he sees how perfect the two of you are together, he’ll be dying to commit. Maybe he doesn’t support or spend time with any of his other kids, but your pregnancy will miraculously turn him into a responsible human being, complete with job.

Girl, it’s time for a reality check. The “it” in “It can’t happen to me” happens all the time. Pretending it won’t is the worst defense. Here’s an alternative strategy: Hold your ground. A man might try to sweet talk (or trick or pressure) you into sex, unprotected sex, an indefinitely-long non-marriage, or any number of other things that go against your morals or would jeopardize your health or goals in life. Don’t put up with it anymore. Doing so will only work against you.

Yes, it’ll be difficult, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. I can’t promise you that your post-jerk-boyfriend life will be perfect. I can’t promise you that you’ll find the man of your dreams, kind and loving, ready to make any sacrifice for your wellbeing. But you’ll be a new statistic: a woman who can walk away from a dead-end relationship before it ever starts. That’s a future worth fighting for.

This post was written for the 2010 No Wedding, No Womb! movement, created by Christelyn Karazin to promote marriage and family to young African Americans. Please stop by the NWNW website to read contributions by other bloggers.

The Greatest Generation

2010-09-21T17:15:00.000-07:00

Back in March, I went to a screening for Legacy: Black and White in America (site) held at the Getty Center.* It was a crowded event with probably every Southern Californian member of the National Council of Negro Women in attendance. The film featured the recently-deceased Dorothy Height and a number of other famous blacks – academics, entertainers, activists – discussing the way things were during the Civil Rights Era and how far the black community today has and hasn’t come.

Those who fought segregation, discrimination, and oppression during the Civil Rights Era, in this film and in general, are sort of like icons. They were and are known for being deeply religious, family-centered, community-oriented, highly motivated, and in possession of fierce determination and a strong work ethic. Every medium available has been used to praise the accomplishments of these individuals.

Yet for all the praise, the story continues as a depressing one. The documentary presents this clearly. For all the struggles undertaken, successive generations continue to fall further behind the pre-Civil Rights ones.** While the interviewees discuss the wisdom and encouragement to succeed passed on to them from their parents, churches, and communities, they lament the unmotivated and demoralized youth of today. They contrast the “greater vision” they had for their own futures, despite the terrible conditions growing up, with more recent tendency toward peer-sabotage (i.e., criticizing those who do try to better themselves or hold to higher standards and thwarting their plans). One participant attributed it to a widespread fear to hope for something better and work towards it.

Perhaps the greatest irony of the Civil Right Era is the fact that, despite its accomplishments, the heritage has become one of failure. A lot was destroyed after the fight for freedom, although I don’t know if anyone has researched on whether it was “because of” or “in spite of.” At any rate, films like Legacy are bitter-sweet. As we continue to honor the heroes of the past, I wonder if it serves as a sort of “opium of the masses.” Talking about the glories of the 1950s to 1970s allows us to forget the present.

*What does this have to do with art? Nothing. The art panel discussion following the documentary failed to make any meaningful connection. Actually, the 100%-non-black panel failed to do anything other than bore the audience with their political rants.
**There are numerous examples backed by statistics, but here’s a personal one: In high school, my maternal grandfather earned a C grade in Trigonometry. Note, however, that that actually required him advancing far enough to take the course. Today, many students try to get by learning as little Algebra as possible.

Old Testament Grace: Daniel 1:8-14

2010-09-17T13:06:00.000-07:00

We Christians often think of “grace” as something God gives us, but people can show grace towards each other. In fact, passages like Matthew 5:48 and 1 Corinthians 11:1 tell us to imitate Christ, and that would include showing favor to those under our care. For Hillary McFarland’s Journey to Grace project, I’m going to look at the Septuagint’s use of form charin in Daniel 1:8-14 (ESV):

But Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king’s food, or with the wine that he drank. Therefore he asked the chief of the eunuchs to allow him not to defile himself. And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs, and the chief of the eunuchs said to Daniel, “I fear my lord the king, who assigned your food and your drink; for why should he see that you were in worse condition than the youths who are of your own age? So you would endanger my head with the king.” Then Daniel said to the steward whom the chief of the eunuchs had assigned over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, “Test your servants for ten days; let us be given vegetables to eat and water to drink. Then let our appearance and the appearance of the youths who eat the king’s food be observed by you, and deal with your servants according to what you see.” So he listened to them in this matter, and tested them for ten days.

Directed by God, the chief of the eunuchs bestowed grace on Daniel. Rather than taking a “Do as your told” approach to management, he carefully explained his own responsibilities to the king and the risks he took having one of his charges underperforming. Rather than responding with anger that his orders weren’t followed, he listened to Daniel’s defense and agreed to a reasonable compromise. Tyranny isn’t God’s way for those in authority to rule (Matthew 20:24-28, Mark 10:42-45, Luke 22:24-26), and the chief of the eunuchs, an unbeliever, knew how to exercise compassion on those entrusted to him. Those of us who aim to be perfect like our Savior should do the same, giving undeserved grace to those under us because God has given grace to us (Matthew 18:15-35).

More Burger for Your Buck

2010-09-12T12:11:00.000-07:00

If there’s anything Christian that’s been successful mainstream and lauded by the liberal academia, it’s In-N-Out Burger. Although it’s generally analyzed from a secular economic or business perspective, it actually can serve as an important model for Christian behavior and relationships.

The fastfood industry has both perfectly competitive and monopolistically competitive characteristics. Firms rely much on advertising, unique menus, and other tactics to distinguish their products from everyone else’s so that they can exercise some control over the market. However, the restaurants are subject to severe price competition since patrons are often quite willing to substitute one burger for another.

Economics is all about self-interest, meeting the individual’s wants. Although a number of Christians have criticized this outlook applied to both business and personal life, very many, following the tradition of Gary North and other Christian Reconstructionists, see the price mechanism as God’s way for managing market activity. For them, it’s all about competition, and its natural result is producers putting downward pressure on wages to cut costs so they can offer goods and services at competitive prices. Critics of the minimum wage see its legislation as destructive to businesses’ ability to compete and the economy’s ability to operate efficiently. Despite a majority of Christians coming from the working class ranks of society, Christian economic theology has leaned away from the idea that business owners, whether entrepreneurs or large firms, owe their employees a “living wage.” The business’ success is at stake, and that’s the priority in the Christian, as well as the non-Christian, economist’s mind.

What does this have to do with In-N-Out Burger? Well, despite intense competition from other burger joints, it has managed to stand quite firmly on the principles of high quality food and a high wage. Just like the claim “not made in a sweatshop” helps the reputation of firms in the clothing industry, In-N-Out Burger attracts both workers and customers because of its “associate” salaries. Paying every employee in any state above even the City of San Francisco’s minimum wage, the stores out do the average starting wages at competitors like Burger King, Carl’s Jr., McDonald’s, and Wendy’s. Even sister-in-Christ Chick-Fil-A, specializing in chicken sandwiches instead of burgers, doesn’t come close.

Now In-N-Out hasn’t become a far-reaching empire as other chains have, but it’s profitable and well-liked wherever it does goes.* What more could a Christian want than to be successful at his job, appreciated by his customers, and known for motivating his workers to care about producing quality work? Yet, many Christians prefer the rhetoric that people are worth only the going market price and value success in the eyes of the world rather than the admiration of those that toil for them.

*And as any member of a large family of picky eaters knows, they’ll always get your order right!

The Donor’s Wishes

2010-09-11T16:16:00.000-07:00

Before ever taking on any financial role in a non-profit organization, I had two good role models that, perhaps unaware, taught me that my duties were more than just proposing a budget and signing checks. My father had been a financial officer for our local church while I was young. He worked very hard to convince the board (elders) that it was important for a small organization to prioritize use of its limited funds. Rather than spreading the money thinly across a large number of projects, they could maximize the success of these projects by concentrating on a few instead.

The other influence was an elderly lady who spent a number of years as treasurer of the local Colonial Dames XVII Century chapter. For a tiny person, she was a force of steel when it came to upholding donors’ wishes, even when they were long deceased. As I would listen to her reports, I learned how to assess projects to determine whether or not a donor’s original intent truly was being followed.

In any non-profit setting, a clash between the donors and others is inevitable. Someone will always want to use the funds, assets, or resources for some grand scheme (honorable or not) that's in conflict with both the letter and spirit of what the original owner wants or wanted. Locally, there was a potential lawsuit involving the Santa Ana Zoo not keeping their end of a land agreement. The recent non-profit corporate takeover of the Barnes Foundation and last great private art collection, was documented very well in the film The Art of the Steal (site, imdb), which I saw back in March. Even small organizations and individuals have trouble with colleges and universities following rules set down for tiny scholarships.

Why does this happen? It stems from people’s insistence that they know what’s best to do with other people’s property, and some will go through all the legal hassle necessary to get their way. This is worse than taxing people for causes which they have no desire to be part of because it’s done in the name of promoting those people’s own interests. No one cares that they’re, in fact, stealing from others. Makes me want to yell, as a protester does in Steal, “Just wait ‘till it’s your own will!”

Youth and Politics

2010-09-11T12:18:00.000-07:00

Last week, I gave one of my classes an off-the-cuff example relating to the national minimum wage. When discussing how a lobbying group might solicit support from members of the US House of Representatives, I discovered that not one soul in the sea of 150+ students knew what congressional district they lived in or who their representative was. I guess this wouldn’t be too surprising. My classes are made up of primarily freshmen who are slowly adjusting to the adult world. Even most college students who bother registering to vote probably only do it to get the free pizza or other goodies handed out by whatever on-campus organization that's collecting registration cards.

I’m attempting to remedy this situation, not by nagging them into voting as many of my own professors did,* but by giving them an extra credit assignment (borrowed from a Political Science teacher). I asked all of my students to look up their representative, if they didn’t know who it was, and write a short paragraph about that person’s views on some macroeconomic-related issue, requiring a trip to his or her official website.

Despite the widespread disinterest in politics among young adults, the students in my class this morning seemed to be getting into it. They were volunteering zipcodes while I was showing them how to look up their congressional district, and they asked questions about the assignment after class. Of course, they just want the extra points towards their final grade, but maybe this will be the first step towards greater political literacy.

*I’m not sure why students who don’t regularly vote are told to do so when they obviously don’t care enough about what’s going on to do so without prodding.

Modesty: Femininity Deemphasized

2010-09-10T21:35:00.000-07:00

Without even taking a poll, I’d say that Christians (especially members of the homeschooled factions) love to talk modesty (in the context of non-sexually-provocative female dress, that is). I planned to stay away from the topic precisely because I doubted that there was anything really new to the age-old discussion about what Christian women should and shouldn’t wear. However, something I read this week resurfaced some concerns that I’ve had over the years, so I decided to drop them here and see what kind of feedback I’d get.

Early on in Hillary McFarland’s new book Quivering Daughters: Hope and Healing for the Daughters of Patriarchy, she includes a journal entry from her girlhood about her father’s reaction to what she wore one day:

“So you were out running around the fair, shirt tucked in, showing your crotch and butt.” Dad kept going on about clothes, getting raped, and guys staring at one’s crotch and butt. (p. 11)

This didn’t surprise me. Hillary’s father, like other members of the modesty movement, focused on covering up the female body with loose-fitting clothing that deemphasized female anatomy. Although I don’t know the details of his views on this, the aim of most is to, at the same time, promote “feminine” dress. The result is some sort of weird Marxian dialectic where the modesty subculture ends up who knows where.

Logically, dressing “femininely” would involve emphasizing that which makes us women fundamentally different from men. The features most easily noticeable and, therefore, most often chosen throughout history have been the breast and hips (meaning thighs and buttocks). However, those are the precise areas that people prefer to cover up, hiding to the point of not even being identifiable.

Receiving the contradictory message of promoting one’s “femininity” while covering one’s female anatomy, Christian women then try a different approach: “Femininity” as a universal concept is redefined and cast in terms of highly variable and external characteristics.* Being “feminine” now means hiding one’s bust, a universal symbol of womanhood and motherhood, under high, pleated necklines, and instead outfitting oneself with flowered prints, lace, ruffles, pastel colors, soft fabrics, and ringlets and ribbons in the hair. The feminists’ division of “biological sex” and “socially-constructed gender” is then realized.

My question is this: How can a woman prize her God-given feminine identity when it’s reduced to man-made images rather than natural beauty? Perhaps the real problem is that there has been a drive towards finding practical applications while the theological and philosophical side of the discussion has been neglected.

*An obvious example is how the 1950s-1960s housewife look (e.g., June Cleaver and Laura Petrie) has become a symbol of proper dress to many. I suspect that that can be attributed to the personal taste of those who spent their young adult lives during that era (e.g., Bill Gothard).

Old Testament Grace: Genesis 18:3

2010-09-10T08:08:00.000-07:00

This is my second contribution to Hillary McFarland’s Journey to Grace project, continuing the survey of “grace” (charis) in the (Greek) Old Testament. The Septuagint’s second instance of the form charin, translated as “favor” or “grace” in the NT, appears in Genesis 18:1-8 (ESV):

And the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth and said, “O Lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant. Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree, while I bring a morsel of bread, that you may refresh yourselves, and after that you may pass on— since you have come to your servant.” So they said, “Do as you have said.” And Abraham went quickly into the tent to Sarah and said, “Quick! Three seahs of fine flour! Knead it, and make cakes.” And Abraham ran to the herd and took a calf, tender and good, and gave it to a young man, who prepared it quickly. Then he took curds and milk and the calf that he had prepared, and set it before them. And he stood by them under the tree while they ate.

Abraham wanted to offer his hospitality to God appearing in the flesh, but he knew that he was unworthy. It was God’s grace that allowed him to serve Him. This story reminds me of the woman who washed Jesus’ feet (Luke 7:36-50). Although she was a sinner, He accepted her offering of washing, kissing, and anointing His feet because He recognized her faith. However, Jesus warned during his Sermon on the Mount that it was necessary for people to settle disputes with others before approaching God with their gifts (Matthew 5:21-26). God is gracious enough to allow us to approach Him, but requires that we do so on His own terms.

Stalin: Americans Confident, Others Not So Much

2010-09-09T14:57:00.000-07:00

Time for another update on my WWII Political Leaders Opinion Survey. (Again, I’m providing these updates at the request of participants, but to minimize the biasness in the results since the polls are still open, I won’t be sharing data on the major questions. Please contribute if you haven’t already done so.) So far, more American respondents claim to be very familiar with Joseph Stalin than respondents from other countries. Is this due to a small sample size? Or are Americans just more confident about their knowledge of Russia’s dictators? My guess is both, but we’ll probably never know for sure unless I can get grant money for a real survey.*

Now for a brief word about history’s most famous Caucasian: Once upon a time, I took a graduate-level course in Marxian political economy. That opened my eyes firsthand to just how much Marxism resembles Christianity.

Very few self-identified Marxists ever purchase a copy of Capital (Vol. 1, 2, or 3**) let alone actually read it. Most prefer touchy-feely inspirational reading like The Communist Manifesto. Some, however, master the original languages, especially German, and spend many hours arguing over correct interpretation of the scriptures. There are “conservatives” and “liberals” when it comes to beliefs about how accurate Marx’s teaching were.

Some adherents promote orthodoxy, preferring intellectual discussion to actually doing anything, while others promote orthopraxy, creating piety movements loosely based on the theology but able to actually promote change in the real world. And yes, there’s a restoration movement advocating a return to “original” Marxism, while others follow the teachings of late-dating denominations and cult leaders. One cult leader, of course, was Stalin.

My professor, a traditionalist of sorts, would tease one of my classmates about being a “Stalinist.” A Stalinist is a Marxist who, rather than wait for eschatological promises to be fulfilled by the natural process of historical materialism, tries to bring about the kingdom on earth prematurely by his own works. Instead of achieving a communist paradise for the working man, he fights for a fiefdom controlled by the lucky guy on top (until he’s betrayed and killed). Purists don’t have much respect for Stalinists.

Although the idea of Stalinism nauseates me, I couldn’t but help but see my Stalinist classmate’s side of the debate. While the rest of the class (anthropologists, economists, and philosophers) planned on getting comfy desk jobs that would allow them to debate all day long on the intricate points of Marxism, he actually had a calling to preach the good news and initiate real change in the world. Scary, but admirable.

*I’m joking…really!
**I collected all three!

Answering the Cry for Material Help

2010-09-08T23:32:00.000-07:00

I just read “What of ‘Social Justice’?” by Don Veinot* and felt an urge to write about Christians’ ideas about the “deserving poor.” On the side Veinot challenges are those advocating “social justice,” characterized by elaborate state-sponsored welfare programs. On the other side are those, generally politically against government welfare, who quote Leviticus 23:22, Deuteronomy 24:19-21, 2 Thessalonians 3:10, and 1 Timothy 5:3-16 to justify not liberally sharing what they have. Although politically I agree with the latter’s view on taxpayer-funded handouts, over the years I’ve become more wary about the biblical arguments used.

What’s the “deserving poor”? Are they like deserving sinners, who do all the right things so that God will so graciously bestow salvation upon them? We really need to ask ourselves why our excuse for withholding charity (a biblical obligation) is that people don’t deserve it!

It’s easy to tell people that they have to do X, Y, and Z to eat, but is that reasoning really in line with the Scriptures? Passages like Deuteronomy 24:10-15, Isaiah 58:7, Ezekiel 18, Matthew 18:21-35, Matthew 25:35-36, and James2:15-16 teach that we should be meeting others’ needs and taking pity on them. Even the main point of Leviticus 23:22 and Deuteronomy 24:19-21 is missed: It’s not about making people work for their food. It’s about giving up the benefits (our own filled bellies or profit from sales) that could be had by gathering every last bit.

We Christians are guilty of refusing to meet people's needs because it's inconvenient. We’d rather argue about whether someone deserves our help or not instead of feeding and clothing them. We’d rather drag our feet with excuses: “They’ll use it for illegal purposes!” “They’ll buy booze!” “They’re lazy!” We need ways to encourage and teach people personal responsibility. We need workable solutions that allow us to fulfill our duty but also clear our consciences of concerns about not being good stewards with what we have. But while those details are being worked out, we shouldn’t delay in getting the real job done.

*I highly recommend his book A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life.

I’m Gonna Live Forever, Part 2

2010-09-08T13:33:00.000-07:00

In an earlier post, I discussed people in their 20s and 30s today who dreamed of living to 200 years old. My arguments against the likelihood of this actually occurring were based on assumptions that life expectancy at birth is converging to 80 years old and that there is a maximum attainable age at approximately 120 years. I concluded admitting that there hasn’t been enough time to observe the aging process of those born after the great strides were made in health and sanitation. However, as I will discuss below, we can evaluate additional data on life expectancies that I believe support the convergence view.

FIGURE 1*

In Figure 1 (above), we can see that most of the gains in men’s average lifespan are in the earlier years. For example, a man born in 1990 is expected to live nearly twice as long as the average man born in 1850. However, comparing two septuagenarians, the expected difference in years left dwindles down to less than four:

So, after a century and a half, all we have to show for a doubled life expectancy at birth is that the much of the advantage disappears after you’ve reached the age of 5. I don’t mean to trivialize the gains made combating infant and child mortality. However, the predictions are that old men fifty years from now aren’t expected to live any longer than old men born in the 1800s. Figure 2 (below) shows a similar pattern for women:

FIGURE 2*

While a woman born in 1990 is expected to live twice as long as the average woman born in 1850, this advantage also shrinks later on in life. A thirty-nine-year difference at birth becomes a six-year difference at age 70:

Thanks to modern medicine, improved nutrition, and better sanitation, the average baby today doesn’t have to face the hostile environment that was responsible for killing millions of infants in history. He or she can expect to live decades longer than babies in the previous century. However, the elderly of the future aren’t predicted to live more than a few years longer than the average elderly person of the past. Adults who fancy themselves invincible should take note: The definition of “old” hasn’t changed. They put their trust in a scientific miracle being repeated when it never even occurred in the past.

*FIGURES 1 and 2: Data series constructed from “Table Ab656-703: Expectation of life at specified ages, by sex and race: 1850-1998,” Historical Statistics of the United States Millennial Edition Online (2006). Cohorts: Individuals grouped by birth year (14 groups). Horizontal axis: Specified age. Vertical axis: Life expectancy in years.

Primitive Economics

2010-09-07T16:37:00.000-07:00

Some days, the most random conversation topics come up. For example, yesterday, my brother-in-law introduced to my sister and me his theory of how ancient people figured out how to cook bread. As we discussed possible scenarios, my Economics Anthropology course during my junior year of college came to mind. After watching a film about slash-and-burn horticulture one some island far away, a friend taking the class with me whispered that she couldn’t understand how primitive people would’ve ever figured out that ashes could fertilize the ground, increasing productivity.

However, it didn’t seem unrealistic to me at all. People back then were just as smart and creative as people now. They would’ve been observant, looking for cause-and-effect relationships everywhere and experimenting as much as their hand-to-mouth lifestyle allowed. Maybe it took them lifetimes to make discoveries, as did many of the scientific advancements of the 19th and 20th centuries.

There’s also a matter of priorities. Most of us don’t think about food 24-7, while their subsistence culture demanded that they concentrate primarily on making it easier to feed their families. We might focus our creative energies on producing YouTube videos and developing Facebook applications, but they were looking for more efficient ways to grow crops and hunt down game. Seen from that perspective, their accomplishments are a lot less surprising.