Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!

Guilt vs. shame

2012-01-27T21:21:00.000-06:00

The current online MSR class I am taking is "Utilizing Church Conflict." It's a good course, and has me thinking about a lot of things, especially my approaches to conflict, where they come from, and which parts need correction. The text is Managing Church Conflict by Hugh F. Halverstadt. It is an interesting book, although I find its language a bit tedious and tiresome, especially it's overuse of the word "one," as in:

One does not choose one's role as a party to a conflict. One's role results from how one's own interests are involved in the situation. However, one does make a choice to manage a conflict's process as well as to stand for one's own interests. One's role is determined by one's interests. One's ministry of conflict management is a response to one's Christian vocation.
HUGH F HALVERSTADT. Managing Church Conflict (Kindle Locations 591-594).

Ugh.

But the ideas in general are valid, so I have been slogging through. A week or so ago, however, I read the following, and I must say it has been in my mind ever since. It is on the difference between "guilt" and "shame," which I had never thought of before, or never in this way (emphases mine):

Many Christians may agree with all these theological and ethical arguments but still find themselves blocked from behaving assertively. It takes more than cognitive understanding for them to behave assertively. The key to anyone's being assertive lies in one's fundamental sense of oneself: of shame or of self-worth.

Christians behave aggressively or manipulatively in conflicts when they are informed by habitual, unexamined beliefs they gained in childhood. Christians behave assertively in conflicts when they are informed and reformed by Christian beliefs that they are fully loved by God. That is why learning to practice Christian assertiveness involves a continuing reflection about one's gut Christian beliefs.

What can block any Christian from being assertive is shame. Shame is a different form of sin than wrongdoing. Merle Fossum and Marilyn Mason explain:

Guilt is the developmentally more mature, though painful, feeling of regret one has about behavior that has violated a personal value. Guilt does not reflect directly upon one's identity nor diminish one's sense of personal worth.... A person of guilt might say, "I feel awful seeing that I did something which violated my values." . . . In so doing the person's values are reaffirmed. The possibility of repair exists and learning and growth are promoted. While guilt is a painful feeling of regret and responsibility for one's actions, shame is a painful feeling about oneself as a person. The possibility for repair seems foreclosed to the shameful person because shame is a matter of identity, not a behavioral infraction. There is nothing to be learned from it and no growth is opened by the experience because it only confirms one's negative feelings about oneself'

Shame-based people cannot assert themselves because they secretly think of themselves as inferior to other parties in a conflict. They perceive of conflicts as occasions when their secret defectiveness will be found out. Therefore, shame-based parties experience conflicts as occasions when they must prove to be right at whatever cost. They are literally driven to be right.

Their goal in conflicts is to be a winner, so as to seem superior. Their terror is to be a loser, which they perceive as being defective.

Obviously, a shame-based mentality in conflicts sets up compulsive behavior. In some win/lose conflicts parties fight aggressively or manipulatively to get what they want at others' expense. They act sinfully. But in other win/lose conflicts one or more parties fight compulsively to be what they fear they are not: worthwhile beings. When parties act sinfully, they can repent and choose to fight constructively. But when parties perceive that they are not of worth, they must be healed before they can choose to fight constructively. Such parties fulfill the profile of a church antagonist drawn by Haugk:

Antagonists are parties who, on the basis of nonsubstantive evidence, go out of their way to make insatiable demands, usually attacking the person or performance of others. These attacks are selfish in nature, tearing down rather than building up, and are frequently directed against those in a leadership capacity.

Tragically, many antagonists cannot even consider repenting without experiencing self-hate. They don't know how to be different without being better or worse than others. When they shame themselves or others for being wrong rather than doing wrong in conflicts, they may regret their behavior, but they see no way to change the reality they perceive and defend at all costs. Reinhold Niebuhr's distinction between repentance and remorse is applicable here: "Repentance is the expression of freedom and faith while remorse is the expression of freedom without faith. The one is the `Godly sorrow' of which St. Paul speaks, and the other is `the sorrow of this world which worketh death.' "" Shame-based people hear God calling, and they hide. Shame-based parties do not hear God call their names because of the bedlam of name-calling going on inside themselves. The only way shame-based antagonists know to resolve conflicts is to determine who is right or wrong, good or bad. They cannot resolve issues without judging persons. Nor can they accept or offer compromises without feeling that they are acknowledging imperfections that might expose their defectiveness. Such tormented parties are often major players in chronically destructive church conflicts.
HUGH F HALVERSTADT. Managing Church Conflict (Kindle Locations 492-516).

This alone was worth the price of admission.

Have you ever thought of guilt as being different from shame?

Tortilla española

2012-01-22T10:59:00.001-06:00

Last night's supper was at church (eating together is part of the theology of Table of Grace, and one of the things I love about it). The theme was "breakfast for dinner." There were lots of yummy things, and I ate too much, as usual. Once the theme was announced, I knew immediately what I would be bringing - tortillas española - Spanish-styled omelets. The beautiful things about them is they can be served hot or cold, which meant I could make them in advance and chill them, and they are easy to make.

I first learned how to make them from Anna Thomas's The Vegetarian Epicure Book Two. I now see that book and the original The Vegetarian Epicure are out of print and commanding fairly high prices as used books, but I would never give my copies up. There is now a The New Vegetarian Epicure out, which I am going to have to get. The former two books are quite simply two of my favorite cookbooks in my whole collection. I bought them when I was going through my first vegetarian phase in the late 1980s, but return to them again and again even as an omnivore, because the recipes are hearty, delicious and so easy to make.

Over the years I've adapted her original recipe and made it my own. The basic tortilla española recipe has a whopping six ingredients in it, and that's counting salt and pepper! But you can adapt the fillings with what you have on hand, and that makes for an infinite number of variations. Try it out for breakfast, dinner, appetizers - it fits all those roles. In fact, one of the most common ways to eat them is as tapas (mmm, tapas).

Ingredients (basic recipe)

1 large russet potato, diced into ¼" to ½" cubes
1 large yellow onion, chopped
2½ Tbs olive oil
salt
pepper
eggs, beaten (see note)

Note: the original Vegetarian Epicure recipe called for five eggs. And that's a fine amount. But you can certainly up that number, and I recommend it if you are going to feed more people. Last night's tortillas used nine eggs each. But given I then sliced them into 8-10 wedges, the egg-per-serving ratio was low, if you're worried about your health. On the other hand, when eating these as a main dish at home, Morgann, Les and I will easily divide a nine-egg tortilla between us.

Extra Ingredients

You may add any of the following, alone or in combinations, based on what sounds good and what you have on hand. At that point we are probably no longer technically making a tortilla española, but I dislike getting pedantic over food. :) You don't want to overwhelm the tortilla, so just a bit (a teaspoon to a quarter cup, depending) of each is enough to add flavor and color. Use your judgment, experiment, and remember what you like for next time sums up my philosophy about cooking.

Oregano (I add a teaspoon of this every time)
Calamata or other black olives, diced
Fresh garlic, chopped
Sweet red peppers (fresh or as pickled pimentos), diced
Fresh mushrooms, diced
Ham, diced
Hard grated cheese
Whatever else sounds good, diced - I've seen eggplant, peas, asparagus, etc.

Directions

Heat the olive oil in a large skillet over medium high heat. Sauté the potatoes and onion until just tender. If any other ingredients are "hard vegetables," you can sauté them at this time, too. I usually have everything else all mixed together with the eggs to make it easy. Pour the eggs, et al., into the pan over the potatoes and onions. Cover and cook on low heat ("2" to "3" on my electric range, depending on how browned I want the resulting omelet to be - a "2" is a good starting point) for 15 to 20 minutes. If you used five eggs, then 15 minutes, if nine or ten then more like 20. A glass lid for the skillet is handy but not necessary to see the tortilla's progress. But basically there is no need to "tend" the skillet during this time, which makes it an excellent recipe for allowing the cook to do other things during the interim.

When the top of the tortilla is just firm, uncover, place a plate upside down on top of it, and then carefully turn the pan over while holding the plate in place until the tortilla drops out of the pan and onto the plate. Put the skillet back on the burner and then slide the tortilla back into the skillet, cover and brown the other side for two to five minutes, again based on the number of eggs and how brown you like your omelets. Slide the tortilla back onto the plate. If you are eating it hot then you're ready to go. Otherwise it can be cooled and served at room temperature or cold. Cut into wedges. Serves 3-4 as a main course accompanied by a good hearty bread for a light breakfast or dinner. Serves eight or more as an appetizer, especially part of a tapas-styled dinner. Also excellent served with salsa.

Enjoy!

In the name of love

2012-01-16T17:15:00.001-06:00

Since people are posting MLK links today, here's mine: Paul's Letter to American Christians, a sermon from 1956. Almost all of his points are still relevant today. I especially like parts of his call for justice and action at the end:

May I say just a word to those of you who are struggling against this evil. Always be sure that you struggle with Christian methods and Christian weapons. Never succumb to the temptation of becoming bitter. As you press on for justice, be sure to move with dignity and discipline, using only the weapon of love. Let no man pull you so low as to hate him. Always avoid violence...

In your struggle for justice, let your oppressor know that you are not attempting to defeat or humiliate him, or even to pay him back for injustices that he has heaped upon you. Let him know that you are merely seeking justice for him as well as yourself...

...Honesty impels me to admit that such a stand will require willingness to suffer and sacrifice. So don’t despair if you are condemned and persecuted for righteousness’ sake. Whenever you take a stand for truth and justice, you are liable to scorn. Often you will be called an impractical idealist or a dangerous radical. Sometimes it might mean going to jail. If such is the case you must honorably grace the jail with your presence. It might even mean physical death. But if physical death is the price that some must pay to free their children from a permanent life of psychological death, then nothing could be more Christian. Don’t worry about persecution America; you are going to have that if you stand up for a great principle.

Finally, an excuse!

2012-01-16T12:20:00.002-06:00

It hit me while at dinner at Table of Grace on Saturday night that I have a valid reason for being overweight! Because in Christianity hospitality is not just a nice thing to do, it is an important part of the theology!

Nah, I didn't buy it, either. :)

Fish tales, episode 1

2012-01-15T17:40:00.000-06:00

A couple of years ago, we gave Jon and Gloria each a 10 gallon aquarium for their birthdays. The experience was...traumatic. No matter what we tried, we had fish dying every week. I had a five gallon tank as a kid, I don't remember it being that hard to keep fish going. I know it wasn't, in fact. We finally had only one tank going, with one goldfish, "Dancer," who lived quite a while. My wife and Gloria both liked to talk to Dancer when they fed "her." But then when Dancer died, both my daughter and Leslie were heartbroken. So the tanks set empty for two years. I just wasn't up for "Jim! Another fish died. Again." Sigh.

Then last summer a friend offered up a 75 gallon aquarium and stand, for free. I spent part of the time since painting the stand (it was black). Then the holidays got in the way. But finally we moved it all upstairs to our dining room. This weekend I went and bought a filter and heater and gravel and we filled it. Now it is just going to settle in for at least a week. My plan is next Friday (i.e., pay day - even "just" what I bought yesterday was expensive, and it was all on sale!) I will buy some testing kits to stay on top of the water condition and a bunch of live plants. I will then let those get established for a week or two before we start to slowly introduce fish. Hopefully this time by carefully monitoring water, paying close attention to tank ecology, etc., we can keep the fish alive much longer.

My plan is to have a completely "Buddhist, pacifist, non-violent, non-aggressive, peaceful, laid back" aquarium. So we will be picking types of fish that all want to live together in harmony. One thing I want is a bunch of neon tetras, because they aren't "nippy," they look cool, and I want enough of them so that they actually "school" together. Because I think that will look cool, and the tank is certainly big enough. How big? This big:

The tank is four feet wide, for scale.

Stay tuned. I will continue to post progress as we go.

Introverts in the Church, part 7

2012-01-14T05:00:00.000-06:00

[Seventh and probably final post in a series on the book Introverts in the Church.]

From chapter 9, Introverts in the Church.

Page 193: Roy, whom I mentioned in chapter five, startled me when he said that introverts actually play a critical role in welcoming others. Because introverts understand what it's like to be on the outside of a community looking in, we can relate to people who are visiting our church and extend hospitality to them in nonintimidating ways.

I hope that is a role I can play and continue to play, because I do understand the "outsider" view.

Page 194: In the same way, churches have a way of choosing us, a process that is mysterious, sovereign.

Man! Did I resonate when I read that, because that's exactly how it felt with stumbling upon Table of Grace - as something that has been "mysterious, sovereign." A "God thing," as more than one person has called it.

Page 199: So much of our human relationships, even the very best parts, is unspoken, and our worship, in which we interact with a personal God, ought to reflect that.

There it is again - the idea that part of a deep and meaningful relationship with God is the ability to just be. "Hey, God! You wanna just hang out with me today?" Which also fits with the book's theme that one of the most important things introverts can bring to the church is that same ability, to just sit with someone and "be."

Well, that's the end of my notes on the book. Again, I highly recommend reading it, especially if you are an introvert, especially if you are an introvert in an extroverted church. Good stuff.

Introverts in the Church, part 6

2012-01-13T05:00:00.000-06:00

[Sixth post in a series on the book Introverts in the Church.]

From chapter 8, Introverted Evangelism.

Page 174: In exploring the mysteries of God together, we relieve ourselves of the need to be the "expert." The formerly humiliating answer of "I don't know" becomes not only possible but even profound. Ronald Rolheiser asserts that "The contemplative believes that, since God is radically and totally other than ourselves and our reality, we can live patiently and believe in God, despite seemingly unanswerable paradoxes, and despite pain and injustice." This mindset transforms awkward pauses into sacred silences, in which we wait for God's illumination.

This has been a guiding principle for me in the Bible study I facilitate (not "lead"). The idea that we don't have to know all the answers, nor do we have to have them figured out by the end of the session. It's also why we go so "far afield," because we're not keeping score of whether we're "covering the material," but instead letting the Spirit lead us where we need to go that evening.

Page 180: We might even call our style of evangelism a "listening evangelism." When someone who identifies herself as a Christian truly listens to another person, it conveys the love and compassion of Jesus in ways that talking about that love never could. Eugene Peterson reflects on the nature of listening: "pastoral listening requires unhurried leisure, even if it's only for five minutes. Leisure is a quality of spirit, not a quantity of time. Only in that ambiance of leisure do persons know they are listened to with absolute seriousness, treated with dignity and importance."

I loved that "unhurried leisure, even if it's only for five minutes." There's almost a koan in there, and one I've been thinking about lately.

Introverts in the Church, part 5

2012-01-12T05:00:00.000-06:00

[Fifth post in a series on the book Introverts in the Church.]

From chapter 7, Leading as Ourselves.

Page 148: The most pivotal preaching event in the Bible was not Moses and the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai, or Peter on Pentecost, or even the Sermon on the Mount; the most pivotal preaching moment was the incarnation, the moment the eternal Word of God, the wisdom with which the whole universe hangs together, became human. God's supreme revelatory medium was not words piped in or scrolls dropped from the heavens, but a living, breathing human being who walked and taught and ate and wept and loved among us.

There you go - I agree completely. The whole book was worth it to read that.

Page 150: Christian leaders, even introverted ones, are called to enter into the worlds of others and allow others to enter ours. We let others see our strengths and our triumphs, as well as our weaknesses and failures and doubts, even our struggles as introverts (using discretion, of course). The greatest gift that we have to offer others is ourselves, because it's in our fragile and vulnerable humanness that people see the unconditional love and redeeming power of God most clearly. A leader showing vulnerability about his or her personal life, thus creating empathy with the pain and struggles of others, often has a greater impact than countless numbers of the most powerful biblical exhortations. I've found this to be especially true when I tell unresolved personal stories, meaning that the story hasn't ended in victory and personal heroism; this presents me as a fellow traveler in the way of the cross.

Leaders don't have to have all the answers!

Pages 154-155: Many people are reluctant to express their deepest longings and hopes, so they project them into superficial, quantifiable gauges that give the appearance of success and vitality. They subconsciously hope that achieving those goals will bring healing and joy to their souls, which of course it never will. They might say they want church growth, but what they actually need is something much more profound and personal. Perhaps they may need to know that God's grace is big enough to reach them in the wilderness, or that he is present in the most vulnerable and dark places of their lives. The best leaders know to, sometimes, not give people what they ask for.

Not give people what they ask for? Blasphemy! :)

Page 155: What a person in pain needs, on the deepest human level, is to not feel alone. What helps someone is people who will simply be there and help carry the burden without always trying to fix the situation. The best thing Job's "comforters" ever did was sit with him on the ground in silence for seven days. I'm sure he wished that on the eighth day they had just returned home, without ever opening their mouths. Words can trivialize, but silence is sacred.

I loved this passage. Can you imagine what a different book, story and lesson Job would be if it had happened like that? Friends came, sat in silence with him, and then left. "Words can trivialize, but silence is sacred." There is true teaching of love and friendship in that!

Introverts in the Church, part 4

2012-01-11T05:00:00.000-06:00

[Fourth post in a series on the book Introverts in the Church.]

From chapter 6, The Ability to Lead.

Page 124: We gain character by opening ourselves up to God's transforming power through prayer, through solidifying our most important relationships and by practicing the good habits that enable us to become the kind of people we want to be. True leaders don't lead out of who others want them to be; therefore, introverts with character will lead as introverts. We do not try to be extroverts or contort ourselves in ways our personalities are not able to go...People desperately want to know that it's possible to live, act and work as they are, and introverted leaders who model authenticity will give others freedom to be themselves.

I really, really needed to read this as I struggle with what my "role" is at home, at work, and in the church. It makes it clear, for one, that "introverted leader" is not an oxymoron.

Page 125: Wilfred Drath and Chales Palus, at the Center for Creative Leadership, explain that "most existing theories, models, and definitions of leadership proceed from the assumption that somehow leadership is about getting people to do something." Instead, Drath and Palus reimagine leadership as "the process for making sense of what people are doing together so that people will understand and be committed. Leadership, in this view, is a matter of interpretation. Leaders give people a lens and a language for understanding their work and experiences in light of larger purposes. They help shape the mental frameworks of others so that those people see themselves as making contributions to the mission and direction of their organization, working in community for a common purpose.

You don't make people go where you want them to go, or where they "should go," but instead you simply help them see and understand the story of which they are a part, and the rest will happen as it should.

Page 126-127: God's gifts are not conditional on our worthiness for receiving them or our fitness for using them, and they are certainly not conditional on personality type. God does not make sure someone is an extrovert before he bestows a gift of leadership, nor does he give gifts by mistake. And he sees his gifts, and their recipients, through to the end - granting the ability to embrace the gift and to use it for the blessing of his church.

The example of Moses gets used a lot in the book. Someone who did not have the natural gifts of eloquent speech or leadership and yet got thrust into being a speaker and a leader and having to rely on God for all of it. The idea that "God does not make sure someone is an extrovert before he bestows a gift of leadership" is a scary one - at least, it's scary to me!

Introverts in the Church, part 3

2012-01-10T05:00:00.000-06:00

[Third post in a series on the book Introverts in the Church.]

The following is taken from chapter 5, Introverted Community and Relationships.

Page 88: It's in community that we learn how to love, how to server, how to listen, how to forgive.

So we introverts need to remember there's a reason we need to get involved and not always sit on the fringes. Like it or not, Christianity is a team religion.

Page 92: Many introverts will relate to a scenario like the following. An introverted woman spends hours contemplating a thought or observing a pattern in her life. She turns it over in her mind until it becomes a companion to her and then decides to share it in the context of a small group. When she musters up the courage to voice it, trembling as she puts words to this precious inner stirring, someone in the group cuts her off when she pauses in the middle, her thought still building steam. This person quickly tells her that she shouldn't feel the way she does or else counters with a story of her own, which only tangentially relates to what the introvert was saying. Nouwen's words perfectly capture the sense of personal violation and emptiness: "Often we come home from a sharing session with a feeling that something precious has been taken away from us or that holy ground has been trodden upon."

Yes, yes, yes, yes! This happens to me all the time, especially in social situations. Happens to Les, too. One of the reasons introverts end up being quieter than most is because we end up being trained to be from interactions like the above.

Introverts in the Church, part 2

2012-01-09T05:00:00.000-06:00

[Second post in a series on the book Introverts in the Church. First post is here.]

Chapter 2, The Introverted Difference, basically describes the attributes of introverts. I already know all about that, so I didn't find much worth posting from it. Similarly, chapter 3, Finding Healing, is aimed at those who've felt wounded by church for being an introvert. I long ago gave up on trying to fit in, so again, it didn't really say anything that I thought worth posting. Both chapters are still worth reading, though. Chapter 4, Introverted Spirituality, had a lot of meat in it, so the rest of this post will be excerpts from that.

Pages 70-71: There is an ancient spiritual tradition, still a central practice in Eastern Orthodoxy, called apophatic spirituality. Also referred to as via negativa ("the negative way"), apophatic spirituality focuses on what cannot be grasped about God through rational thought, words or images. It emphasizes the hiddenness of God. This is in contrast to kataphatic or positive spirituality, which is focused on what can be known about God. Kataphatic spirituality is grounded in revelation - the words, images and other means through which God has chosen to disclose himself in the Scriptures, the created world and the incarnation of Jesus Christ....Although we possess God's self-revelation in the Bible, God can never be encapsulated by words on a page or confined by precise doctrines. Words and tangible images are signs pointing to God, but they are not God himself. As useful and necessary as they are, they have a way of limiting or trying to control him.

Or as our pastor Michelle, puts it, "trying to put God in a box."

Pages 72-73: Contemplative solitude, though, differs from simple privacy. Privacy involves moving away from something, physically distancing ourselves from the draining world of outside stimulation....Solitude, however, is as much of an internal state as it is a physical reality. In solitude we move toward something, toward an encounter with God that produces spiritual renewal....God's power is resurrection power, the very energy that triumphed over death in the person of Jesus and set the world ablaze with new creation. When we seek him in solitude we avail ourselves of resurrection power, finding restoration that supersedes any refreshment we can find in mere privacy.

The challenge for me is to convert the many times when I desire or simply choose "mere privacy" by default into something more contemplative.

Pages 74-75: There is a very animated committee in my head that produces all kinds of imaginary scenarios, has fierce verbal jousts, and wrestles with any number of personal and world dilemmas, so the challenge has been allowing God into my internal conversations My internal chatter is so constant that it becomes difficult for me to discern the voice of God...It's not that I need to silence the conversation that comes so natural to me; it's that I need to allow God to assume his place at the head of the table.

Amen to that!

Page 83: The goal of silence is not necessarily to hear the profound word from God, but simply to spend time with our Father - in which God may or may not speak.

How counter-cultural is that? The idea that it is useful, necessary even, to just "hang" with God. Not because he wants to hear what I have to say, not because I am going to get to hear what he has to say, but simply because, as two in a relationship, sometimes it's good just to be together, quietly. That one really struck me.

Introverts in the Church, part 1

2012-01-08T10:47:00.000-06:00

[First post in a series on the book Introverts in the Church.]

I just finished reading Adam S. McHugh's book, Introverts in the Church: Finding Our Place in an Extroverted Culture. It was recommended and reviewed by Dan some time ago, which is how it ended up on my reading list. I liked the book, it fit in with my vision of how church should "work" for an introvert like me. One of the things the author pushes is that church isn't always supposed to feel comfortable, so we shouldn't just shop for a church that lets us introverts blend into anonymity. Instead, he discusses what introverts need to fully become a part of community (which is what church should be all about) and how to recognize, celebrate and use the gifts of introverts as much as we do extroverts.

While its focus is on the evangelical church, I think the points made apply to any church, or virtually any other organization in our extrovert-oriented culture. In the end, both introverts and extroverts should feel stretched outside their comfort zones.

Recommended.

The rest of this series will be excerpts from the book I found particularly interesting, moving or provoking. If you are an introvert, I hope they motivate you to read the book or at least consider the points made. If you are an extrovert, maybe they'll help you recognize and better interact with the introverts around you.

Chapter 1: The Extroverted Church

Page 19-20: The evangelical priority on this kind of personal relationship with Jesus has direct implications for the nature of the community that forms around him. It is not surprising that evangelicals have a high value for intimate, informal relationships with one another, and we structure our churches - with small groups in our houses, fellowship hours, social events, accountability groups and prayer chains - in order to support this value. Most evangelical churches strongly encourage (and sometimes require) participation in these kinds of activities.
Unfortunately, sometimes our value for community life can become a substitute for relationship with God. Psychology professor Richard Beck says that for some churches spirituality is equated with sociability.
...
Yet for introverts who are wearied by and sometimes apprehensive of large quantities of social interaction, these evangelical emphases can feel discouraging and marginalizing. By no means are introverts against intimate relationships; indeed we are motivated by depth in our relationship. And while the emphasis on intimacy with Jesus is welcome, in community we prefer interactions with smaller numbers of people with whom we feel comfortable. So when an evangelical community explicitly or implicitly preaches broad interaction across the congregation, the introverted resistance to it can produce interior feelings of spiritual inadequacy.

Amen!

Page 21: To participate in the evangelical church is to join the conversation. Introverts, however, spare our words in unfamiliar contexts and often prefer to observe on the fringe rather than engage in the center. Our spirituality may be grounded in Scripture, yet is quieter, slower and more contemplative. In an upfront, talkative, active evangelical culture, we can be viewed as self-absorbed or standoffish, and we can feel like outsiders even when we have faithfully attended a church for years.

Sounds like me at my last church.

Page 25: We might say that modern evangelicalism has a hearing problem. We often preach before we seek to understand a situation or before we sit in prayerful silence. Our verbal effusiveness can devolve into breezy cliches, hollow sound bites and repetitive song lyrics, things that don't honor the uniqueness, complexity and beauty of each person.

This actually fits with some reading I'm doing for my current MSR class, Utilizing Church Conflict. Shut up and listen first - both to the other person and to God.

Page 26: Some have said that, in Christian culture, busyness is next to godliness.

Page 26: I was reminded of Eugene Peterson's indictment of our brand of Christianity: "American religion is conspicuous for its messianically pretentious energy, its embarrassingly banal prose, and its impatiently hustling ambition."

Amen, again!

Pages 27-28: All the interviews I conducted with introverted pastors yielded one commonality: the coffee hour after worship is one of their least favorite hours of the week. They love their people, but after expending a tremendous amount of emotional energy to preach, they would prefer to disappear into their offices than mingle.

I would say this is true of me as just a member of a church. However, one of the things I enjoy at Table of Grace is we eat supper together after every service. Somehow sitting down to a meal together is different than just wandering around making chit-chat with a cup of coffee in your hand. It allows individual conversations of some depth to occur. And I make sure and sit with different people each week and during each evening. Even so, after an hour or two, I am ready to go home and process!

Second hand news

2011-12-27T09:46:00.000-06:00

There's a phenomenon when working in health care, social services and the like called "compassion fatigue." You basically get your empathy circuits burned out.

I am starting to get "This NEXT law/act/action/inaction of the government is going to end life as we know it" fatigue. My give-a-shit circuits are burned out.

The oil pipeline.

SOPA.

NDAA.

Kicking out all those dirty Occupiers and their garbage ("It's about garbage!")

Government funding extensions.

Unemployment extensions.

The list goes on and on. It's not that each and every one of those isn't important. It's that they're all important, and they're all happening all the time, at the same time.

And that's they're strategy. Because they know, they know, that they can just keep pushing stuff and some of it will get through. And over time the filth accumulates until it is uncleansable. Remember, folks - this is their full-time job, and they're good at it. There are entire industries aimed at doing to us just exactly what is being done to us - lobbyists and lawyers and legislators who make a life's work out of being good at all of this. Where a day of obfuscation, spin and power grabs is considered to be a good day at work.

It will never stop. Never. Give up the illusion of control, or even influence. You have none, except an angry "Fuck you!" vote every four years, and that's only getting to vote between Coke and Pepsi. Write, call, email, petition, complain to your congressperson all you want. They're in a waiting game, and they'll just shift course slightly, pretend to be bending to "the will of the people" and then start it up again a week or month later in another format, with another name, buried in another bill about something else.

As part of my annual file cleaning and reorganizing process I found (and deleted) letters I had written to this legislator or that over the past 18 years. And you know what? Every single thing I wrote against came true - not necessarily then, but sooner or later, it was passed anyway. It was as if I, and you, didn't even exist. Because we don't.

I can't begin to even come close to getting across how influential reading Tolstoy was to me this year. And one of the things he pounds home is that at some point, if you are participating in government, even by being the "loyal opposition," you are legitimizing it and all of its actions. All of them. Because there are some actions that shouldn't be accepted no matter what the majority thinks, or thinks they think, or wants, or thinks they want. And yet democracy is predicated that we all go along once the decision is made, because otherwise we're those sore losers, like the South when it seceded after Lincoln's election. And we've all been conditioned to believe that with that object lesson in our history, then the only other answer is to go along, no matter what.

Oh, sure, we get to "protest" - until they decide the park looks better without those tents. And we get to "vote" - once in a while. But in the end, it just doesn't matter. Because your job is to support yourself and your family, and that consumes a hell of a lot of time and energy. And their job is to screw you. You can only devote a few hours a week or month to letter writing and marching. They can devote their entire lives to screwing you. And they do. And we let them.

It's an election year, so I will be going on another news sabbatical (actually, I have already been on it). Like the one CEO who said he didn't read the news because he could count on the waiter telling him if something really big happened ("Didja hear? The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor!"), I'll just count on friends to tell me if something important happens. Note that I am now of the mindset, however, that SOPA and NDAA and the pipeline and government shutdowns and the election aren't "important." I mean, they are, but anything I think about them won't matter. They're important in a, "Gee, is it just me, or is that glacier closer to the village this year than last?" sort of important. Implacable. Irresistible. Need to know when to pull up stakes and move the village important. But not day-to-day or life-on-this-planet important.

So, if an asteroid is going to hit the planet in the next 48 hours, I'd like to know. If the Chinese bomb Pearl Harbor I'd like to know. Otherwise, let's talk about important things. Love. Life. Family. Friends. Because that's all we have in the end. And that's all we have with each other.

Stewardship class

2011-12-10T21:23:00.001-06:00

Since Pastor Dan is my blogging hero, I thought I would emulate him and write down some of my notes and thoughts about the MSR "Stewardship Strategies" class I was in the past two days. Like the evangelism course I took in November I was sort of dreading the class but it turned out to be excellent, and a lot of fun since many of my MSR friends were there. And the instructor, Ed Taylor (no, not this Ed Taylor...no, not that one, either...ah, here he is, if you scroll down a bit) has an obvious and infectious passion about the topic. The only thing that distracted me is that he sounds like Alec Baldwin - but I mean that in a good way! :)

The following list is obviously not complete nor in any sort of order, but are bullet points I wrote on the slide handouts so I wouldn't forget them.

One overarching theme was not to use line-item budgets to communicate to members - instead, have ministry and mission stories and what those each will cost at a high level. Have a detailed budget available for reference (for those who care), but keep the main conversation on what we're trying to accomplish, not how much the electric bill will be next year.
Many pastors won't talk about money because they think it's about their salary, or afraid that it will sound that way.
Stewardship is about relations:

with God
with each other
with "stuff"

The goal is not to increase stewardship but to create stewards.
What is the congregation's "story?" Is it a good story? Is it worth listening to? Participating in?
We should talk about our objectives, not the budget. What are we trying to do? How will money help?
Talk about stewardship as a faith issue, including our own struggles with our faith and growing our faith.
Stewardship = my need to give to imitate God's generosity
Fundraising = an organization's need for money.
We need to talk about it directly. We need to let people know what is expected. For example, one church set expectations such as:

1-3 years attendance - giving 1-3%, attending 1+ Sunday per month, participation in Bible study, choir, or another program.
4-7 years attendance - giving 7%, attending 2+ Sundays per month, serving on a committee in a mission or area for which you have a passion.
8+ years attendance - giving 10%, attending every Sunday, leading something for which you feel passionate.

"Tithing is too much of a burden for the poor and not enough for the rich." (I missed the attribution for this quote)
In our culture at large our primary identity and purpose is "consumer." But it should be "steward." Our consuming habits should be shaped by being a steward; our stewardship should not be shaped by being a consumer.
The offering is not an administrative task in the middle of service, it is allowing people to sacrifice and make themselves holy.
"The opposite of poverty is not wealth, it is community." - Paolo Friere
Use a different name than "stewardship," since stewardship means different money (only) to many people, and means nothing to the unchurched/new members.
One congregation printed up cards that allowed members to write what they had already sent via direct deposit or check to have something to drop in the plate on Sundays, so people didn't have to feel embarrassed by not putting anything in the plate. Another idea was to write hours of service on a piece of paper and put that in the offering - allow people with less means to still give of their time and talents. One church then publishes those hours given along with the amount of money given.
What message does not putting anything in the plate (because we've given by other means) send to visitors? Other members? Children? What message does not taking the plate to the altar send?
Is an endowment a silo (storage) or a vineyard (ongoing production)?
The "language of scarcity" is used in too many churches. Need to change to a language of thanksgiving.
Don't use apologetic language during offering or discussion of stewardship.
"I have good news! It's time to receive the offering!" - Ed Taylor
Can't use one type/form/language to reach all members. Ed's congregation sends out seven (7) different types of letters, depending on the member - young adult, young married couple with kids, etc.
"If your church burned down, what would the community rush to replace, if anything?"
Put financial reports last in stewardship committee agendas, otherwise they will eat up the whole meeting.

And a quote from the text:

In the world of fund-raising, a maxim is "The easiest way to raise money is to ask people for it. All other ways are more difficult."

There was a lot more, but that's enough for now. Good stuff!

Lynne Loschky's cheese sauce

2011-11-30T19:18:00.001-06:00

Les and I met in Freshman Honor's English class at Lincoln University in the fall of 1982. It was taught by Helen "Lynne" Loschky. Besides providing the forum in which I met my future wife, Lynne has had a huge impact on my life, and I owe her a lot. Unfortunately she passed away from cancer in 2003. I miss her.

She was more than an English professor to me, although it shows what an amazing English professor she was since I took Victorian literature - "Vicky lit" - just to have her for another class. She was a mentor, coach and friend. At one point we lived next door to each other and her daughter babysat my eldest daughter. She was one of the people who actually convinced me I have a brain, and along with Margaret Bridenstine was the best teacher I ever had.

And one of the many things she taught me about life was her cheese sauce for pasta. This sauce, with some canned clams or shrimp, was her "emergency" recipe for when people came unexpectedly for dinner, because it was quick, easy and so rich that it tasted like a gourmet feast while allowing the cook to be unconcerned about it and spend time with the guests. That was classic Lynne.

I've used it since as the basis for many things, including tonight's scalloped potatoes and ham. Which is what made me decide to post it. Here it is, in all it's glorious simplicity.

Ingredients

1 stick butter
1 package cream cheese
1+ cup cream

That's it. But of course that's not it, because like all great cooking, the simple basics can be varied a million different ways. For example, Lynne would add any scraps of whatever cheese she had laying around in the fridge. And of course you want to season it with salt and pepper, plus anything else that sounds good. I've used the following alone or in various combos over the years:

garlic (lots of garlic)
oregano
basil
chives
dill
parsley
thyme

Lynne used it as the basis for a seafood sauce, adding canned clams or shrimp (or both). You can add whatever you want. Choose any of the following:

canned seafood
minced mushrooms
diced ham or other diced leftover meat (chicken, etc.)
peas

You get the idea.

Directions

In a double boiler or a non-stick pot on medium melt the three main ingredients together until they are hot. Do not bring to a boil, although a light bubbling around the edges is fine. Add whatever else you're adding and heat through. Done.

Pour over pasta, use as the starting point for scalloped potatoes (that may be another post), or as a dip for a crusty bread (sourdough or pumpernickel would be good). It's very, very rich, so just the base sauce and a pound of pasta plus a salad will easily feed four. Serve with a white wine by candlelight and it will seem like an elegant, intimate dinner for your closest friends, even though they saw how little effort you took to make it. But then again, since you all got to talk and laugh through the brief preparation of it, isn't that the best dinner of all?

Thanks, Lynne. We miss you.

Better living through user stylesheets II

2011-11-21T18:29:00.001-06:00

[I posted a version of this a year ago. I've updated it for both Wiki's latest annoying campaign and to add Facebook's "stream" to the list. If you get real serious about this kind of thing, it is probably better to install some sort of ad blocker. But then you have to trust the people who make the ad blocker.]

Most modern browsers support user stylesheets, i.e., stylesheets that are written by the user, deployed in the browser and treated as the last part of the style "cascade." User stylesheets allow for overriding individual web sites' styles at the local level for such things as accessibility.

They also allow us to quite quickly get rid of annoying things from web sites we visit all the time, without having to install a browser extension (how do you know who wrote your ad blocking extension and what they're doing with the browser access you've granted their app?) In my case, the annoying things I wanted rid of were the sad puppy-dog-eyes faces at the top of Wikipedia pleading for more money. That campaign's been going on forever now, it seems - even public radio and TV get the point and only shake us down twice a year for a week at a time. And this time I also wanted to get rid of Facebook's "ticker," especially since they're going to start embedding ads in it.

With a bit of sleuthing I determined what tags were holding the problematic content and quickly came up with some CSS to hide it. Dropping that CSS into the user stylesheet in the right magic location immediately rid all the pages of the ad and Wiki and Facebook were back to looking like their old selves again.

If you have even a slightly technical bent, you can benefit from this, too. The following instructions presume Chrome as the browser, but this article tells you the locations and CSS files to use if you are using other browsers - the stylesheet file content should remain the same.

For Chrome, you need to find the Custom.css file. On Windows Vista/7/2008, it is located at the following (replace your-user-id with, ahem, your user id):

  C:\Users\your-user-id\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\User Data\Default\User StyleSheets

[Presumably on Windows XP it will be under C:\Documents and Settings\ in a similar location.]

For Mac OS X, it is at:

   ~/Library/Application Support/Google/Chrome/Default/User StyleSheets/

On Ubuntu Linux it is found here:

   ~/.config/google-chrome/Default/User StyleSheets

In all three locations you should find a file called Custom.css. Open this file for editing (Notepad is handy on Windows, otherwise use the editor of your choice). It will probably be empty. Inside the file, place the following line (letter case is important!):

#siteNotice { display: none; }
.ego_section { display: none; }
.ticker_stream { display: none; }

The first line is for Wiki, the second two for Facebook (yes, they really call the ticker the "ego section" - insulted yet?)

Save the file. Navigate Chrome to Wikipedia and you should no longer see the ~~shakedown~~ pleading banner! Nor should you see the stream in Facebook. If you want to revert, simply delete both lines from the file and save the file again (don't delete the file - it probably wouldn't hurt anything, but...)

Caveats:

You will never see any other site announcements from Wiki, either, as long as they continue to use the siteNotice tag id for thediv they wrap site announcements in. Nor will you see anything Facebook decides to display in the "ego section."
If any other site you visit happens to use an id attribute on an element and call it "siteNotice" or a class attribute and call it "ego_section," you won't see that content either.

I consider both of the above a small price to pay to not have to look at Jimmy Wales again when all I'm interested in is the capital of Albania.

Enjoy!

Dirge

2011-11-19T08:22:00.001-06:00

Good mourning

this morning

Missing lost friends

this mourning

Lost by death

cancer, car wreck, noose

Lost by life

marriage, children, divorce,

jobs, layoffs, moves

Lost by business

and busyness

comfort and laziness

"you will always be there"

Lost by cruel words

or worse

no words

Who knows what

can tip the balance?

Friendships die

some resurrect

not very damned often

I knew you

and you me

I remember us

laughter, joys

anger, tears

food and talk

I love you

and miss you

I'm sorry

Good mourning

this morning

How are you

friend?

Gushy green comfort food

2011-11-12T20:07:00.001-06:00

It's been a while since I posted a recipe...

Tonight after church they had a Mexican dinner (we have dinner after every service - I think it is awesome). I had signed up to bring guacamole. For one, because I make good guac, if I say so myself. For another, this weekend was supposed to be a major system upgrade at work (note the "supposed to be" - let's just leave it at that and move on, shall we?) I figured I wouldn't have time to make anything real involved, and guacamole is easy. After missing church and losing a day of my life at work I came home and made the guacamole as comfort food. And it helped.

I don't care if my guac is "authentic," I just know I like it. It has had two major influences over the years. The first was the Wondervu Cafe at the top of Coal Creek Canyon in Colorado. When I lived up in the canyon in 1993-94 going there was a Friday night tradition and their guacamole quickly became a favorite. That was where I figured out the first rule of good guac: the avocados are basically green glue for onions and salt. If you come away from eating fresh guacamole and your breath doesn't stink, it wasn't very good guac.

That kept me satisfied for years. I experimented with adding a bit of cilantro, lime juice, etc., but if all I had were avocados, onions and salt, I was happy. Still am, actually. But it can get better. The second influence was El Torito Grill next to the Hilton in Torrance, California. For three years in a row from 2006 to 2008 I stayed there a week at a time and ended up eating at the El Torito four to five times each week. They make guacamole right at your table - it doesn't get any fresher than that! The menu now shows three types of "Guacamole de Molcajete," but I've only had the first one, and it is delicious. Now I tend to take my general direction from them with a few additions, because cooking is about making things your own.

So, with that background, here is my "recipe" for guacamole.

Ingredients

Essentials

2-4 ripe avocados (you want them a bit soft - not too hard, not too mushy)
½-1 onion, diced fine (red or white are best)
salt to taste (I like it salty, say 1 heaped tsp for this recipe)

Optional (one, more or all of these to taste)

juice from ½-1 fresh lime
1+ Tbs chopped fresh cilantro (some people hate it, I love it - you decide)
diced fresh tomato (I used the last four small Romas from the garden this year)
finely diced fresh chilies (El Torito Grill uses Serranos or Habaneros, tonight I used one finely minced Hab from the garden - leave out if you are not a hot-head)
grated Parmesan cheese (or better, one of these hard Mexican cheeses, if you have them available - we don't here in the middle of nowhere)

The grated cheese is El Torito's secret weapon, I think. They don't put it on their list of ingredients in their menu, but it really makes a difference. I believe they are use Cotija Añejo.

The other "secret" is fresh - everything should be fresh, fresh, fresh.

Directions

Halve the avocados, scoop them into a bowl with a spoon, and "mush" them a bit with a fork. Stir in all the other ingredients except the grated hard cheese, which goes on top. Serve immediately, or if it needs to sit for a while cover it with plastic wrap smooshed right down on top of the guac itself to seal out all air and keep it from turning color (and if you do this, don't put the cheese on until you serve it). Serve with fresh tortilla chips. For those of you of the ethanol-imbibing persuasion I need not tell you cervezas or margaritas are good with this.

Serves however many can elbow in and fight a few scoopfuls from the bowl before it is gone. Tonight it served one, generously.

Mmmm...guacamole...

I want to live on the western end of a time zone

2011-11-06T20:48:00.001-06:00

[...because Frank Black has already claimed living on an abstract plain.]

I may have discussed this before, but I want to end up near the western end of a time zone (preferably Mountain time, so that means western Montana or Idaho). If the time zones were simply longitudinal lines, then the western edge of one would be almost exactly an hour later than the eastern edge. But they're not, the lines wander as does any other political boundary on the planet. So in some cases the borders can be more than an hour apart. For example, today in the Central time zone the sun set at 4:39 in Chicago and 6:05 in Valentine, TX, a difference of 86 minutes. But obviously there are latitudinal factors coming into play there. In the Mountain zone, at roughly the same latitude, the difference between Rosebud, SD, at 4:28, and Owyhee Reservoir, OR, at 5:34, was 66 minutes.

I first noticed this phenomenon when I was staying with relatives in west-central Nebraska in the summer. The summer evening's twilight seemed to go on forever, and part of that was because they weren't that far from the western edge of the Central time zone. So by the time you factor that, plus long summer days and Daylight Savings Time into it all, it was still twilight after 9:30. And isn't that what you want, at least in the summer? To get off work and know you still have four or five hours of daylight left? Of course, that means by definition sunrise is an hour later, too, so for early starters, it might be more ideal to live on the eastern edge.

Just something weird to think about in the early darkness...

Life, the universe, and trick-or-treaters

2011-11-01T10:05:00.000-05:00

Last night we had 42 trick-or-treaters, which is also the ultimate answer. We had enough candy for 142. I was handing it out by the fistfuls and still we had leftover candy.

I wish we'd had more. When I lived in Lakewood, Colorado, we had hordes of kids and would run out of candy every year, having to turn all the lights out by 8:00pm or so. That was fun. Some of the neighbors in that area didn't like the fact that "those kids" from the poor apartments four or five blocks away came through the neighborhood, sometimes without even costumes (because they're poor! duh). I always marveled at just how scrooge-like people can be about such things, begrudging handing out candy to poor children. Grrr...

Me? I love Halloween. I don't dress up. I hardly put anything up except a few lighted decorations to help denote our house as being one open for trick-or-treaters. But for some reason I love handing out candy to trick-or-treaters. Young or old. From the neighborhood or not. Rich or poor. I don't care. I just like answering the doorbell, hearing "Trick or treat!," commenting on the costumes and handing out candy. That's it. That's all there is, and I love it. It always makes my day.

I especially like the little kids who are old enough to walk up to the door on their own but still so young they don't know what to say or are in that too-shy phase to say it. Last night's winner was a little girl of about three (I'm guessing), whiskers painted on her cheeks, serious face, big eyes. I opened the door and she just looked up at me with those big eyes. Silence. "Are you a kitty?" Serious nod, big eyes. "I like kitties! Here's some candy!" Serious nod, big eyes. "Bye bye! Happy Halloween! Have fun! (wiggle-fingers-wave)" Walks away, looking back, serious face, big eyes.

That made my whole night. :)

And here's the thing - I am not a big fan of kids. I wasn't really that good with little kids when I was a little kid. I've long joked I barely liked my own when they were little (I loved them, of course, but I like them more and more as they get older). My idea of hell would be a never-ending birthday party for a four-year-old and all their friends. I am usually fairly curmudgeonly about it all.

Yet still I love Halloween. It lets me be a good guy for a night, just some anonymous dude giving out candy by the handful. I like to see the costumes. I love to hear the shouts of "Trick or treat!" and "Thank you!" I don't even want to shake my fist and yell, "Get offa my lawn!" It's a night where I get "just enough" of little kids, and we both get to be in our best forms - them all cute in their costumes and excited about the free candy, me in a good mood just seeing the parade of happy faces, shoveling out candy, hoping for more to show up, sad when it's over. Weird, eh?

To mix holidays together a bit, it's like that moment at the end of "Grinch" where he's happily tossing gifts off the back of the sleigh. It's the thing that makes my heart grow three sizes, if only for a day.

Anyway, here's to hoping for more next year. Maybe we'll get 142! Maybe we'll have to turn off the lights and go hide in the back of the house at 7:30 after running out of candy. That would be heaven.

If only for a night.

Right depository

2011-10-27T09:13:00.001-05:00

We give to various charities - church (not just our own) plus other organizations that touch our heart in one way or another. We're very lucky to have what we have and like to express our thankfulness to God by spreading it around. But I've started to notice one thing. The smaller the organization (church or charity), with presumably the higher need of donations due to lack of cash, the more inefficient their cashing of a check. Whereas the larger the entity the more quickly they get those funds deposited and cleared. Isn't that weird?

On the one hand it is obvious that a larger organization can dedicate people to doing such things. If they have paid staff working in finance they can even designate that making a bank run every day is part of someone's job description. I get that.

Here's the thing - we often get heartfelt, sincere and I am sure quite truthful pleas for support from this small organization or that one. And we are glad to help. But while I am not necessarily expecting them to run to the bank immediately upon receipt of my check, clutching it happily in their fist as they skip into the branch building and slapping it on the counter, shouting at the teller, "Lookit this! Howzabout dat for support? Eh?! Eh?!", I am looking for a semi-timely deposit of my gift. For one, it helps me keep my books in order.

However, there's another point here. If you are part of a small organization and you claim to be heavily in need of funds, then if you receive gifts in the form of checks and don't make semi-regular deposits at your bank (is "within a week" too much to ask?), your actions are belying your words. You are sending one message with your mouth ("Please give"), and another with your inefficiency ("Whatever.") That inaction ends up translating to, "They must not really be that desperate for money, if they can let un-cashed checks lie around indefinitely."

There are some organizations we give to that literally take up to a month (or more) to cash checks - sometimes for every check we send. Really.

Really?

Really.

Even accounting for transit time, clearinghouses, etc., that's sitting on funds for two to three weeks. In general school organizations are the worst at this, and it doesn't seem to matter which school. One month delays are the norm there. But other sacred, social, secular and scholastic non-profits are also bad about it.

I mean, this isn't bills, this isn't expenses. This is income. I don't know about you but while we're not at the door of the pauper house I am not one to let a paycheck just sit around un-deposited. "Oh, we'll get to that sometime. It's only money, har har!" I would think for some start-up charity where a cash crunch would be a normal state of affairs, at least a weekly run to the bank would be a good, businesslike thing to do. In fact, I would look at it as a stewardship thing to do. If you aren't being a good steward of the gifts given maybe you don't deserve more gifts. Not because you're bad, or the cause is bad, but because you're not an efficient avenue for that help and some other group can make better use of that money, getting it working for them and the need they are serving quickly.

Which is the whole point, isn't it?

So my message to any small charity is this - if you really need the funds you are raising then act like it when you receive them. You don't need to waste gas and scant volunteer time with a daily trip to the bank but at least a weekly trip is probably in order. Your actions or inactions will speak louder than words. If you want people to support your charity then act like you notice when they do. Set a goal to deposit those checks within five business days. Is that too much to ask in return for my support? To act like you need the money you requested in the first place?

Spiral cut spam

2011-10-24T19:01:00.002-05:00

I tend to write in a "spiral," not linearly. I think that is a big secret to my approach to writing, and one that was not explicitly taught to me. The common approach for teaching creative writing is to "just write." To spew out your thoughts unedited so you can get them down and then refine them later. That is a good way to get past "writer's block." But I don't think it goes far enough in helping, because it implies that "just writing" is still done the way most people think writing is done - in a linear fashion. And that is what causes true writer's block. It implies knowing where you're starting, what you're going to say and where you're going to end before you even know what the hell you're going to write about in the first place.

Sometimes I can sit down and write out a long rant in one pass. [Hint: If I ever use the word "screed" in something, that is probably how it was written.] But often I start with a shell, a shadow of an idea, and will fill it in and figure it out as I go. For that type of writing a direct, straight line is never the right way to approach it. Instead I "spiral" in on the idea. I may write a bit of the beginning, then suddenly know what I am going to say at the end, after which something I want to say in the middle shows up. Thinking of a (usually cute or ironic) title helps (see above). And I rearrange during the whole process incessantly, which is not the same as "editing" in the sense of "critically thinking about it, correcting and excising." I page up and down furiously, transferring text, filling in a sentence, then that changes something I want to say later and I race back down to capture that. Over and over and over again, until something in me says, "Finished."

Earlier tonight I wrote the following screed (see hint, above) to help a fellow student who was having trouble getting started with a term paper for class. It describes my approach to writing about as well as anything, so I thought I would capture my process here (since it gives me a blog post - I am a big believer in recycling). My advice:

I would concur that just starting to write (while turning off the internal editor until you're finished) is best. But that can be hard to do. Here are some practical tips I've evolved over the years and used in the current assignment:
Create your new Word doc. Title it, put your name on it, get the headers and footers set up for page numbers, font size and line spacing for the paragraphs, etc. There! One thing done! Only 99 left to go. :)
Lay out a few section headers titled for where you think you may be headed. NOTE: These are not permanent! They are just way stations and placeholders.
As thoughts come to you - from one word that reminds you of something you want to cover later to a whole paragraph of inspiration, WRITE IT IN THE DOC, AS QUICK AS YOU CAN TYPE IT, in the "appropriate" section.
Ctrl-X (cut) and Ctrl-V (paste) are your friends, as are Page Up and Page Down. I write something quickly, then realize five minutes later it belongs with something two pages up, so I cut and paste it right then. BUT I STILL DON'T EDIT, not yet. This is just "organizing" and watching my thoughts coalesce.
Be open to the possibility that halfway through the paper your focus will change - that something is suddenly going to jump out at you as a "theme" you didn't even know existed when you started. This happened to me in this very paper, in fact. I was going in one direction and ended up in a completely different place, and threw away about a third of what I wrote on the way. THIS IS A GOOD THING, not to be seen as a "loss" of that work. It means when you find that theme you will suddenly have the bursts of inspiration, because now you know what you're going to say, where you're going.
Wander in front of your bookshelf a few times, looking at other books you've read in the past that may have something to bear on the topic at hand. Pull 'em out. If you have dog-eared pages or highlighted sections, glance through them. Do they have something relevant to say? If so, use it. If not, don't. Let the "past you" who thought certain theological points important enough to remember help the "current you" by pointing them out via those highlights. Gee, you just experienced time travel! Pat the "past you" on the back and say, "Thanks, pal! I owe you one!" :)
Lather, rinse, repeat.
DON'T WORRY ABOUT POLISHING UNTIL YOU ARE 75% FINISHED. Then, start getting a bit more serious about editing. Continue to cut and paste stuff around to make it "flow" better. This process will actually help you refine your points and you'll come up with still more to say, hopefully.

As a follow up I would add that for me the first pass at editing at the end is removing 95% of all the commas.

Anyway, this process works for me, and has for a couple of decades now. It was only in the past five years or so that I actually started to recognize it as my "process" and appreciate it and let it work for me, as opposed to trying to write "the right way." It helps.

So...How do you write? Do you have any "tricks" that help you get "unstuck?"

Say it again, Sam

2011-10-22T14:15:00.003-05:00

A few days ago I overheard a conversation that was happening far enough away that I could hear the "notes" of the voices but not understand the words. It hit me that all cultures have a certain "music" to their language. Think of someone exclaiming, "Hi! How are you?" I bet in your head you played a certain "tune." And I bet if we each hummed or whistled or played that tune we'd be real close in terms of the notes and duration - the "melody" of the phrase.

That got me to wondering if there are some linguistic tunes that are the same or similar across cultures? Could we recognize some phrases simply by their melody? Obviously there are other "songs" when speaking that are not the same in each language. Could those cause conflict, especially if one is speaking in a language that is not their native one? We all know that differences in accents and where someone puts emPHASis on different sylLABles can cause difficulties in understanding. Can a change in pitch, cadence and literally the notes used in speaking also cause such problems?

Since then, I've also started noticing people who speak in more of a monotone, and how hard it is to follow what they're saying. Their "song" is missing, and that causes the communication to be less efficient, it seems.

Have you ever noticed any of this?

So, whaddya wanna talk about?

2011-10-21T08:11:00.002-05:00

A quick one today. It hit me this morning that if the Bible enjoins us to refrain from gossip (and it does), and (being humble) we're also supposed to keep from talking about ourselves, then if everyone follows just those two rules:

Don't talk about others.
Don't talk about yourself.

...the amount of allowable conversation topics just got a lot smaller. Worse, it will be driven toward the sort of inane "small talk" that drives me crazy - the weather, sports (but not anything personal about the players, obviously), politics (but not anything personal about the politicians, obviously) and entertainment (but not anything personal about the entertainers, obviously). Actually, looking over that list, you can roll it all up into "weather and entertainment."

We are supposed to be in community. We are supposed to care about one another. But that seems real hard to do if we can't talk about each other or ourselves. All those long, awkward pauses I feel when interacting with others? The ones that occur not because I am not thinking of anything to say, but because from personal experience I know better than to say it? Those just got a lot longer and more awkward.

So...how 'bout that weather? Sure is somethin', huh?

PURLs of wisdom

2011-10-19T09:14:00.001-05:00

A friend posted an interesting experience he had the other day on Facebook. He had been checking out a company's web site and later on they called him (without him asking) to see if he needed any help or further information. His response, and the response of all his friends in the thread, varied between "I'm never doing business with that company!" to "Creepy!" I think pretty much anyone would respond that way to what appears to be an "unsolicited" phone call.

I followed up with him and it turns out he had clicked through on a link in an email that was in response to a request for info he had sent in to them. Which brings us to our topic of "personalized URLs," or "PURLs" (pronounced "pearls"). PURLs are simply URLs, or web addresses, that, surprise!, have been personalized to uniquely identify you when you click on them. They are a hot thing in marketing right now, because they allow a company that uses them to:

Customize the "landing page" you arrive at to be specifically tailored to your interests.
Track which pages you go to and the amount of time you spend on each page.
Monitor further requests you make for information, helping to determine their marketing campaign's effectiveness.
Follow up with further emails (or in this extreme example, phone calls!) that are even more specific.

The whole process of using PURLs in conjunction with targeted marketing campaigns is called "lead nurturing," and it's a hot topic in marketing.

Now, before you get all "That's Big Brother!" in reaction, remember, most businesses could care less about invading your privacy. What they are really looking for is (a) finding new customers (b) to provide with exactly what they need (c) in the most efficient mechanism possible (d) for both the company and the customer. And PURLs are a good way to help in that process. It is no more nefarious than the tracking and suggestions that Amazon or Netflix make (both of which can be quite good), except it can happen without any prior relationship with you in place. All it takes is your email address (and hopefully some inkling of what you're interested in).

However, there are still times when you obviously don't feel like being "nurtured." You just want some information so you can mull it over, and if you're interested you'll come back. That's it. So, how to protect against PURLs in those situations?

Remember, this has nothing to do with tracking based on browser cookies (although it is often used in conjunction with them), so turning off cookies or using your browser's "anonymous" browsing functionality will not help protect you - all the information they need is in the link itself.
Don't click on links in emails. For security purposes this can be a good idea, anyway. For avoiding PURLs, it is essential. In most mail clients if you hover over a link it will show you the URL, or address, so you can tell where you are going to land if you click on it (this is always a good idea). If the address has a long string of gobbledygook characters in it, it is quite likely a PURL.
Don't ask for information from a company and give them your email address unless you want them to start tracking you via PURLs when they send you a response.

If you receive an email with links with PURLs in them, you can still go check out the web site without triggering the PURL tracking. Simply open a new tab in your browser window and type in the base part of the address (just the domain name) without the rest in there. For example, if the PURL is:

http://weknowwhoyouare.com/3edf-387ufewnmf3==ed08ifefd3er

...or:

http://3ff390dfgf3q2g.weknowwhoyouare.com/

...then you can simply browse to weknowwhoyouare.com and check it out without them knowing it is related to that email marketing campaign. If you are really paranoid (but still interested) turn on anonymous browsing and obviously don't give any personally identifying information (PII - such as email addresses) unless you decide to do business with them.

You should note that in the extreme example of a company being so tone-deaf as the one who started off this thread, it is quite probable that they will say they are protected from prosecution from the "no-call list" law because it all started with a simple request for information from a potential customer, to which they responded with an email, to which he clicked through on a link and motored around on their site. So there was an "initial request for information," which is probably enough of a "business relationship" to "justify" their being able to do a lukewarm call (not exactly a "cold call").

Hopefully this helps. And again, remember, most companies aren't trying to be evil with PURLs. Just efficient. And there are times when you may want that efficiency. In which case, click away! But you should now know enough to know when you want to be "nurtured," and what to do when you want to be left alone. So don't cast your PURLs before swine (sorry, I couldn't resist! :).

A reflection on domestic violence

2011-10-13T13:30:00.001-05:00

It's "Domestic Violence Month." Of course, for the unfortunates in that situation, every month is domestic violence month. And it's a sad world we live in when some locales denote the month by decriminalizing wife beating (and shame on the city government of Topeka - what douche bags).

My daughter Meghann wrote a piece about domestic violence and how it has affected her and her husband through some neighbors they had in Texas. I recommend reading it. I am proud of her for writing it. I am proud of both of them for trying to help. I am sitting here after reading it with tears in my eyes - proud.

I was in the midst of commenting on her post when I just kept writing and writing, until I finally realized, "Instead of spamming her post with this, I had better spam my blog viewers with it, instead." So, here:

When I was 29 or 30, I volunteered for a mental health hotline in Kansas City. As someone who had wrestled with suicidal thoughts and made multiple attempts up until one that proved to me that I didn't really want to go that route, I felt it was a karmic thing - something to pay back. I was glad to do it.

On the hot line, we had lots of training - both up front before we were allowed on the phones and ongoing. How to talk to someone who's suicidal. How to talk to someone who's mentally ill. What resources are available. What resources are available at 12:30am on a Sunday morning. We had a whole day of training just on domestic violence - what you can and can't say, including things not to say because it will make it worse by making her stay with the jerk. It was eye-opening. Basically, my side of the script was:

"Here's the number. Call the shelter. They will help you."

That's really all you could say. If you came down too hard on the guy, you might cause her to actually defend him. If you tried to tell her what to do, she could reject that as too scary. All you could do was calmly give her the info and encourage her to use it.

"Here's the number. Call the shelter. They will help you."

What finally made me leave that volunteer gig weren't the calls from the depressed, the suicides, the random crazies - like the guy who liked to repeatedly call and ask the volunteers what kind of shoes they were wearing...really. That became part of the shift turnover report: "Oh, and the 'shoe guy' is calling again." It was funny. And I was actually pretty darned good with the suicidal calls, having been there myself.

No, what made me quit were the domestic violence calls. Because they were always the same. Always.

Always.

They were right out of the training scripts, actually. And in every case, she would be on the phone (it was always a she - I know there are men who get abused, but the numbers are just much, much lower) and in between describing her fear, telling whatever horrific thing had just happened to finally trigger her to call for help, me trying to give her options and numbers to call, etc., she would be DEFENDING him. "I know he's a good guy on the inside, he just has trouble controlling his temper." "I know I give him reasons to be mad at me." "I know he really loves me deep down." Sickening.

There was one call I'll never forget. She was calling from a phone booth in the middle of the night (my shift was usually 10:00 to 1:00 or 2:00, something like that), her little children huddled around her legs, telling me of her fear because the beating had been bad, and she knew he was out driving around, looking for her, and it would be bad again when he found her.

"Here's the number. Call the shelter. They will help you."

"I know he loves me..."

"Here's the number. Call the shelter. They will help you."

"I'm afraid my kids and I won't have a place to live. And sometimes he can be really nice..."

"Here's the number. Call the shelter. They will help you."

"I just don't know what to do..."

"Here's the number. Call the shelter. They will help you."

She ended up hanging up. I still don't know what happened to her and her children. I can only pray she took the numbers and called one of them. Please. God, please. Please.

It was shortly after that call that I stopped volunteering on the hot line. Because I knew I couldn't keep doing it and stay "on script." Sooner or later, I was going to say, "Tell me where you're at, I'll come get you." Then I was going to continue, "And then we'll go get a gun and hunt the SOB down and take care of the problem once and for all."

That wouldn't have been helpful.

So there are other brave souls out there manning those phones instead. I think they are heroes, because they are doing something I can't do.

I have been lucky - I grew up in a loving household without abuse, try to provide the same to my wife and kids, and honestly don't know of anyone who is in that situation. I know it is a "hidden crime," and more common than most of us think, but I honestly don't think any of my close family or friends are in that type of relationship. If they are, I hope they reach out to Les and me. And I hope we're as brave as my daughter and her husband in trying to help them.

And I hope you are, too.

Or, if you are in that situation...

Here's the number. Call the shelter. They will help you.

1-800-799-SAFE or visit www.TheHotline.org

Too big to be good

2011-10-11T13:04:00.001-05:00

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."- Kay

The above is almost a truism. With very few exceptions, it's hard to find a completely unlikable human, let alone a completely evil one. Jerks exists, yes - there would be no time-share condo salespeople nor megalomaniacal dictators nor talk radio hosts if they didn't. But even jerks will coo to a puppy in their "dog voice" or answer a toddler's ringing toy phone:

No, instead, something happens when we get together in groups. And it doesn't seem to matter the purpose of the group. A business. A political organization. A religion. A neighborhood association. A poker party. A family. Humans acting together causes normally nice folk, people who will say "Ah...Wookit da doggy!" and compliment you on your pictures of your kid or grandkid, to act like dishonest, mean, calculating, cruel, uncaring, inhuman jerks.

Lots of reasons have been given as to why. Depending on your philosophical outlook, it can range anywhere from original sin to class struggles caused by dialectical materialism. Regardless, there seem to be a few common factors:

There is no way to stop it from happening.
The bigger the group, the worse it gets.
Some people are "amplifiers" who can make an entire group worse.

I think I've come up with yet another theory as to why it happens. I don't know if this can lead to any insight into how to stop it, though, although it does argue for a limit on the ultimate size of a group for it to remain "good" (which unfortunately does not equal "effective").

Let's take as a given that no person is 100% "good" - honest, likable, straight-dealing - however you want to measure "good." If everyone is just 98% "good," that's all the explanation we need for why groups go to hell in a handbasket, and quickly.

You would think that if you had fifty people who were 98% good, then the "goodness" of the group would also be 98%, that is, the average of everyone's goodness. But I don't think a group's goodness is an average. I think it's multiplicative - every person in the group, interacting with the others in the group, magnifies each other's non-goodness. In other words, a group of fifty people, each of whom is 98% "good," is not a 98% "good" group. Instead, it is:

x = 0.98⁵⁰ = 0.36417 = 36% good

You'll note that fifty's not that large of a group, and the above is counting on everyone being so nice you couldn't actually stand to be around any of them. In reality, the spread of "goodness" within the group population will be wider, and the negative effects much more pronounced. For example, a single jerk, someone who is 50% "good," can make the above group of fifty people worse - fast:

x = 0.98⁴⁹ * 0.5 = 0.3716 * 0.5 = 0.1858 = 19% good

Now, obviously this weights every person in the group and their influence on all other people equally, when in reality some will have more impact, especially those in higher (management or leadership) positions. But that just proves the point more. Because as people rise in a group, the type of people who tend to rise (broad generalization, I know) are going to be the ones who leave their goodness at the door. Yes, I am sure honest executives and politicians exist - but I am more likely of ruining the grill on my truck by hitting a unicorn on the way home from work than of personally knowing one. And the bigger the group, the less likely the people at the upper reaches are "good," even as their impact on the group grows.

Now, let's get back to the sizing of groups. Even if we give everyone the benefit of the doubt and count every person worthy of veneration, the above still implies there is a limit to the size of a group before its "goodness" crosses below the 50^th percentile and moves into evilness. A bit of back-of-the-envelope fiddling leads to the following:

x = 0.98³⁴ = 0.50314 = 50% good

So, this would lead you to think that up to 34 people, you're OK - your group is "good." But remember, that's with every single person in that group being at 98% "goodness," and especially with no one less than that in a position of power. That ain't gonna happen. So in all likelihood I am betting the number is lower...much lower. Ten? Five? Somewhere in there, most likely.

Anyway, the next time you wonder, "How could x get to be so cruel/dishonest/fucked-up?" (where x is a club, committee, church, company or country), all you have to remember is that if x is larger than 34 people, it's all in the numbers. They're screwed simply because they're too big to be otherwise.

Make sense?

Well, that was "Qwik"

2011-10-10T09:49:00.000-05:00

A month ago, as part of the Netflix fiasco, I pointed out that with the name "Qwikster" they were keeping all the "goodwill" in the Netflix brand name on the streaming side. Well, apparently I wasn't the only one who thought that was a bad move. Here is the announcement from Netflix CEO saying that DVDs will be staying at Netflix. Which still doesn't change the point of my original post - I think all of this is just part of the death throes of physical media.

Some fall photos around Jeff City

2011-10-09T11:50:00.000-05:00

Yesterday Erin and I got up early to go take photos around town. She is in a digital photography class at school and had some assignments to get finished, whereas I was just the chauffeur with a cell phone camera. Which had some odd settings turned on, apparently, because a lot of my shots came out "funny." Even so, there were a few good ones, I thought. Hope you agree.

The underlying issue

2011-10-05T07:01:00.000-05:00

I am sure it will shock some readers here, but I just finished reading a book that wasn't about religion (although, once my agnostic and atheist friends see the title, they'll tell me it still was). The book is The Big Con, by David Maurer. I picked it up from the bargain shelves at the local Barnes & Noble.

The book, by a linguist, is about the specialized argot used by con(fidence) men. But to explain what it all means, the author ends up describing what it takes to make a good con man, what the roles were, the various schemes (as of 1940), how grifters picked out "marks" (victims - read as "you and me"). It was a fascinating read. In fact, the movie The Sting is based on the book and one of the schemes described in it ("The Wire").

But to me the most interesting part was about the marks. Because it turns out that cons, all cons, are based on one thing - the greed and cupidity of the victim. None of the cons work unless the mark is trying to make "something for nothing." In fact, many of them work by getting the mark to believe he is actually helping defraud someone else. Not only was it a fact of human nature that made it easy to find potential suckers, but it helped limit their ability to go to the police - "Officer! There's been a crime committed! Well, ya see, we were trying to cheat this guy out of $10,000 and instead they cheated ME! Wait! Where are you taking me?"

I thought two things through the whole book. First, while the schemes seem dated now, I am sure - positive - that they are being run in one form or another today, this very minute (Bernie Madoff, anyone?). Second, what makes me sure of that is because human greed is constant. We see news reports all the time about people falling for some Ponzi scheme, something that seemed "too good to be true," and was. And we smugly think, "How could anyone be that stupid?"

I hope I never find out.

You gotta problem with that?

2011-10-03T13:33:00.000-05:00

I hate conflict.

No, really. I HATE conflict.

This may seem strange to many people who know me - especially people who think they know me because they've worked with me (where I can project a very different front as a defense mechanism), or who are a tangential "friend," distant relative, or someone who just stops by and reads the various bits and bytes I spew here and on Facebook, Twitter and g+, where I sometimes come across very aggressive, without even the benefit of the passive part.

But if you are close enough to me that you've spawned me, been spawned by me, practiced spawning with me, can name everyone I've ever practiced spawning with or its outcomes, have helped me move one of the 19 times since I turned 18, or in general put up with my shit for more than a decade and still return my emails and phone calls, then chances are you're a "hide the body" kind of friend. And that means you know.

I hate conflict.

It's really no surprise. Most people do, I think. I mean, we all know there are some who seem to enjoy it, to feed on it, to need it. But we're not talking about prison guards and debt collectors. Average people mostly want everything to be "nice."

For me the thing I've started noticing is that I actually hate conflict to the point that avoiding it causes other problems. I need to make some changes with various businesses Les and I use and keep putting it off, because even though doing so will save us money, I fear the possibility of the momentary conflict that may arise while it happens. Some person I don't even know,who I will only interact with for five minutes on the phone, may try and thwart me by being momentarily unpleasant. They may give me a hassle. Express their disappointment. So I delay, over and over.

There is another situation where I need to tell someone I have changed membership from their organization to another, and I feel I owe them an explanation as to why (and why that means I haven't been participating for some time now), but I am afraid that the conversation may end up being heated, even though it probably won't, and I don't want that to happen. I like and respect this person, so I want to remain on good terms with them, and fear it may not end well. So instead, it is just like I've disappeared for no reason whatsoever, which is worse.

A while back I was delving into procrastination and read an excellent book about it - The Now Habit (recommended). One of the things the book pushed was the idea that often, when we procrastinate, we are actually getting a reward for stalling. That reward may be something like simply wanting to do something fun instead. But often it is by holding off something unpleasant, even though that means the unpleasantness simply "collects interest" while it is waiting. And I realized that often my procrastination is built upon conflict avoidance.

So, a goal I've set for myself is to start trying to step up and face these things, without any emotional escalation. To acknowledge, "Yes, there may be some conflict in this," preparing for it, and then getting on with it. I think I need to develop and practice some standard procedures for this, so I can act in a practiced manner and not just react, or worse yet, not act at all. I will never enjoy conflict, but I need to put my fear of it in its place and get on with my life.

You gotta problem with that?

Is happiness treason?

2011-09-28T09:18:00.002-05:00

"Is happiness treason?" That's one of the questions posed in the commentary to today's Gaping Void cartoon:

At first that question shocked me. After all, our country was founded on "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." But note - that's the pursuit of happiness, not the attainment of it.

Capitalism would fall flat on its face if we all decided, today, right now, that we're happy with who we are and happy with the way things are. Think about it. You wouldn't need that shiny new tech toy. You wouldn't need that expensive new pair of shoes. You wouldn't need that sleek new car. The luxury vacation to "get away from it all." And you certainly wouldn't need to sit in front of the TV or computer and soak in advertising-laden mental opiates to distract you from your life, nor would you need the politicians screaming for attention on them, trying to convince you that their brand of hate will make the world a better place than that other brand of hate.

If everyone just decided they were happy then commercial enterprise that wasn't oriented toward supplying food, shelter, basic clothing and health care ("bananas, bedrooms, briefs and biopsies") would collapse. And all of "civilization" along with it.

Yup, happiness is treason, all right. So, whatever you do, don't be happy - our country depends on your misery.

Who we want to be versus who we are

2011-09-25T10:20:00.000-05:00

"Bugs is who we want to be. Daffy is who we are."
- Chuck Jones

"The Dude is who we want to be. Walter (or Donny) is who we are."
- me

Beautiful inscription

2011-09-21T05:00:00.000-05:00

I bought a book (Reason for Being: A Meditation on Ecclesiastes) by Jacques Ellul for some "light reading" (joke). To save a bit of money, I bought it used, rated to be in good condition. When the book came today it was indeed in very good condition - no highlighting (I detest other people's highlighting and underlining), the cover is in great shape, and so on. However, inside the front cover is an inscription. It is so well-written I don't mind having it there. In fact, while I love its message it makes me a little sad that the person to whom it was inscribed didn't keep the book. You'll see why (emphasis in the original, and I elided their names for privacy):

3/22/03

J---,

Congrats on obtaining your architectural license. It is a worthy reward. Wish you continued success as an architect and a designer. Always raise the bar on yourself and challenge yourself with change and chance.

This book is very important to me, and so is the author, Jacques Ellul. He was the world's watchman that was the most authentic voice in the wilderness in the 20th century.

His books are difficult but very rewarding to the Christian who will battle and struggle with Ellul's thoughts. Ellul is my hero, he is Christocentric in his thought and always provides fresh clear insight to who our God is and where he wants us to go. Always exciting & new.

I encourage you to struggle and read to the end.

- L----

Makes you want to read it, eh? My hope is that before "J" sold or otherwise was rid of the book that at least he read it. Although if someone ever gave me a book with such a thoughtful and beautiful inscription as "L" wrote, I would never part with it.

I like that last sentence. It could almost be a motto for life.

"I encourage you to struggle and read to the end."

Amen.

DVDs are dying

2011-09-20T09:33:00.002-05:00

That's not what the latest mea culpa email from Netflix says, explicitly, but it is how I read it. Why? Because they have been in business since 1997 shipping DVDs, only got into the streaming business in the last few years, but now, with the name change of the DVD side of the business ("Qwikster?" Really?) they are taking all the "good will" (if there's any left after the past few months) and brand recognition in their name and keeping it on the streaming side and renaming the DVD side of the business.

I like Netflix. I really do. But I cancelled the DVD delivery part of our subscription with the price change, and considering I get Amazon video streaming for free with our Amazon Prime account, I can see not staying around on Netflix forever. Especially if they pull one or two more bozo stunts. Then I will be Gonester. Foreverster. Reallyster.

Squash your appetite

2011-09-18T05:00:00.000-05:00

Mom made soup for lunch yesterday, and given the cool, overcast, rainy fall day today, I felt it was a good night for it again. So I invented the following squash soup. It was good, but very rich. Quick and easy, too.

Ingredients

1 12 oz. package frozen cooked winter squash (that stuff you probably hated as a kid, but I loved it)
½ stick butter
1 cup heavy cream (I didn't say this was going to be healthy)
1½ cups cooked cheese tortellini
½ cup peas
½ tsp lavender (a little goes a long way)
1 Tbs sage
coarse ground pepper
salt
toasted garlic flakes (made the same way as toasted onion flakes)
crumbled blue cheese

Directions

Heat squash, butter, cream and seasonings until the soup is bubbling. Add tortellini and peas and heat thoroughly. Serve garnished with garlic and blue cheese, with a side salad and crusty bread. Serves two.

A shameful confession

2011-09-17T12:57:00.004-05:00

I have a deep, dark secret, something I am so ashamed of it's taken me this long to come out about it in public. I expect many of you reading this will never talk to me again.

I don't like Stevie Ray Vaughan.

I also don't like Elvis Costello.

There are just some musicians and bands I am told I am supposed to like, either by critics or friends, and try as I might, I just...can't. I revisit them from time to time, trying to see if my tastes have changed with age. Sometimes, it has (Johnny Cash comes to mind). But, like spinach, there are just some artists I can't bring myself to like, no matter how much others tell me I should, no matter how many times I try.

Grateful Dead.

Bruce Springsteen.

Tom Waits (one of my best friends just hated me for this one).

I'm so sorry. I have no excuse. It IS shameful. I feel so bad. Dirty. But...I am who I am, and I just can't seem to change. Will you ever forgive me?

His own crazy way

2011-09-16T09:53:00.003-05:00

3. A Leader
is a fellow
who refuses to be crazy
the way everybody else is crazy
and tries to be crazy
in his own crazy way.
- Peter Maurin, Five Definitions

Would they stand by you? Would you stand by them?

2011-09-14T05:00:00.000-05:00

In response to my post yesterday my friend Donna wrote the following, which I like, a lot:

Would you stand with me if I chose to be in the light of day
to face those that would come take me away?
I hope there are those who would be willing to hide me
but I'd rather have them stand beside me.

- Donna Ross (used with permission)

Would they hide you? Would you hide them?

2011-09-13T11:51:00.000-05:00

I was struck by this:

http://blog.jgc.org/2011/09/disconnected-bedroom.html

The Disconnected Bedroom
A long time ago I banished most electronics from my bedroom as a way of getting a good night's sleep. There's no TV there (what started out as no TV in the bedroom ended up as no TV at all), there are no computers and no cell phones. There is a hard telephone line that only a very few people know the number for (the sort of people who would hide me) and if it rings I want to be woken up...

I followed that second link:

http://blog.jgc.org/2008/02/would-they-hide-me.html

Would they hide me?
This is pretty much exclusively a technical blog, but I was very struck by something legendary investor Warren Buffett said when answering the question "How do you define happiness and what about your life makes you most happy?":
I know a woman in her 80’s, a Polish Jew woman forced into a concentration camp with her family but not all of them came out. She says, “I am slow to make friends because when I look at people, I have one question in mind; would they hide me?” If you get to be my age, or younger for that matter, and have a lot of people that would hide you, then you can feel pretty good about how you’ve lived your life.
I know people on the Forbes 400 list whose children would not hide them. “He’s in the attic, he’s in the attic.” Some of them keep compensating by joining board seats or getting honorary degrees, but it doesn’t change the fact that no one will give a damn when they are gone. The most powerful force in the world is unconditional love. To hoard it is a terrible mistake in life. The more you try to give it away, the more you get it back.

I like that. I'd like to think I have at least a few people who would hide me. I know of quite a few I'd hide. It's a good metric for the richness of the friendships in your life.

Two sides divided and disputing

2011-09-11T05:00:00.000-05:00

"Ordinarily, when speaking of the rise of Christianity, men belonging to one of the existing churches use the word church in the singular, as though there were and had been only one church. But this is absolutely incorrect. The Church, as an institution which asserted that it possessed infallible truth, did not make its appearance singly; there were at least two churches directly this claim was made. While believers were agreed among themselves and the body was one, it had no need to declare itself as a church. It was only when believers were split up into opposing parties, renouncing one another, that it seemed necessary to each party to confirm their own truth by ascribing to themselves infallibility. The conception of one church only arose when there were two sides divided and disputing, who each called the other side heresy, and recognized their own side only as the infallible church. If we knew that there was a church which decided in the year 51 to receive the uncircumcised, it is only so because there was another church—of the Judaists—who decided to keep the uncircumcised out. If there is a Catholic Church now which asserts its own infallibility, that is only because there are churches—Greco-Russian, Old Orthodox, and Lutheran—each asserting its own infallibility and denying that of all other churches. So that the one Church is only a fantastic imagination which has not the least trace of reality about it. As a real historical fact there has existed, and still exist, several bodies of men, each asserting that it is the one Church, founded by Christ, and that all the others who call themselves churches are only sects and heresies."
- Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is Within You [emphases mine]

With intellect and decent purpose

2011-09-10T05:00:00.000-05:00

"Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war – as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years – I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, "Farewell Address", January 17. 1961 [emphases mine]

Cross of iron

2011-09-09T05:00:00.000-05:00

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms in not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.
It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.
It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.
We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.
We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, "Chance for Peace" speech, April 16, 1953 (as pointed out to me by Karen Lindsey)

On that day war would be no more

2011-09-08T05:00:00.000-05:00

"Yes, indeed, since government assumes the right of annihilating peoples thus, there is nothing surprising in the fact that the peoples assume the right of annihilating governments.
They defend themselves. They are right. No one has an absolute right to govern others. It ought only to be done for the benefit of those who are governed. And it is as much the duty of anyone who governs to avoid war as it is the duty of a captain of a ship to avoid shipwreck.
When a captain has let his ship come to ruin, he is judged and condemned, if he is found guilty of negligence or even incapacity.
Why should not the government be put on its trial after every declaration of war? If the people understood that, if they themselves passed judgment on murderous governments, if they refused to let themselves be killed for nothing, if they would only turn their arms against those who have given them to them for massacre, on that day war would be no more. But that day will never come."
Guy de Maupassant, Sur l'eau, as quoted in Leo Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God Is Within You

And people call peace

2011-09-07T05:00:00.000-05:00

"Every government maintains as great an army as it possibly could maintain if its people were threatened with extermination, and people call peace this state of tension of all against all.
...
Fortresses, arsenals, and ships are built, new weapons are constantly being invented, to be replaced in a short time by fresh ones, for, sad to say, science, which ought always to be aiming at the good of humanity, assists in the work of destruction, and is constantly inventing new means for killing the greatest number of men in the shortest time. And to maintain so great a multitude of soldiers and to make such vast preparations for murder, hundreds of millions are spent annually, sums which would be sufficient for the education of the people and for immense works of public utility, and which would make it possible to find a peaceful solution of the social question."
- Montesquieu, as quoted in Leo Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God Is Within You

But still they obey it

2011-09-06T11:06:00.000-05:00

"All men are brought up to the habit of obeying the laws of the state before everything. The whole existence of modern times is defined by laws. A man marries and is divorced, educates his children, and even (in many countries) professes his religious faith in accordance with the law. What about the law then which defines our whole existence? Do men believe in it? Do they regard it as good? Not at all. In the majority of cases people of the present time do not believe in the justice of the law, they despise it, but still they obey it. It was very well for the men of the ancient world to observe their laws. They firmly believed that their law (it was generally of a religious character) was the only just law, which everyone ought to obey. But is it so with us? we know and cannot help knowing that the law of our country is not the one eternal law; that it is only one of the many laws of different countries, which are equally imperfect, often obviously wrong and unjust, and are criticised from every point of view in the newspapers. The Jew might well obey his laws, since he had not the slightest doubt that God had written them with his finger; the Roman too might well obey the laws which he thought had been dictated by the nymph Egeria. Men might well observe the laws if they believed the Tzars who made them were God's anointed, or even if they thought they were the work of assemblies of lawgivers who had the power and the desire to make them as good as possible. But we all know how our laws are made. We have all been behind the scenes, we know that they are the product of covetousness, trickery, and party struggles; that there is not and cannot be any real justice in them. And so modern men cannot believe that obedience to civic or political laws can satisfy the demands of the reason or of human nature. Men have long ago recognized that it is irrational to obey a law the justice of which is very doubtful, and so they cannot but suffer in obeying a law which they do not accept as judicious and binding."
- Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God Is Within You [emphases mine]

A matter of degree

2011-09-05T10:51:00.002-05:00

"One man may not kill. If he kills a fellow-creature, he is a murderer. If two, ten, a hundred men do so, they, too, are murderers. But a government or a nation may kill as many men as it chooses, and that will not be murder, but a great and noble action. Only gather the people together on a large scale, and a battle of ten thousand men becomes an innocent action. But precisely how many people must there be to make it so?—that is the question. One man cannot plunder and pillage, but a whole nation can. But precisely how many are needed to make it permissible? Why is it that one man, ten, a hundred, may not break the law of God, but a great number may?"
- Adin Ballou, How many Men are Necessary to Change a Crime into a Virtue?, as quoted in Leo Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God Is Within You

A thought about politics and justice

2011-08-31T20:29:00.002-05:00

"What is a political regime, when devoid of justice, but organized crime?"

- Augustine of Hippo, City of God, book 4, chapter 4

The entire chapter follows (from a different translation):

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.IV.4.html

Chapter 4.—How Like Kingdoms Without Justice are to Robberies.
Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, “What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor.”

Just a LITTLE bit OCD

2011-08-25T17:30:00.001-05:00

Gee, doesn't everyone organize their Kindle library according to the Dewey Decimal System?

Google+, we hardly knew ye

2011-08-17T09:56:00.001-05:00

Well, it's been fun while it lasted. Google has pulled one of my best friend's Google+ account over Google's stupid name policy (he legally changed his name years ago to a single name, but they won't accept someone with just one name). Their asinine name policy is getting a lot of heat on the web, and rightly so. Consider me collateral damage.

I've been thinking about how disappointing it's been on g+ since first showing up there with high expectations. But even as a rabid Facebook hater, I am still actively posting and reading there multiple times a day, whereas I have to make myself post something to F♭, especially since most of the people in my g+ circles are on Facebook already, too. So I haven't figured out what its "niche" is supposed to be versus the other social networks I'm on (Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter).

The following two posts say it much better than I am:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2011/08/15/a-eulogy-for-google-plus/http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2011/08/15/the-rise-of-the-google-plus-faithful/

In the end, I've maintained for a while that Google doesn't "get" social, and F♭ (and Buzz and Orkut before it) just prove it. In fact, here's my (growing) list:

Google doesn't "get" social
Microsoft doesn't "get" mobile
Apple doesn't "get" enterprise
IBM doesn't "get" consumers
Sony doesn't "get" ecosystems
Facebook doesn't "get" privacy†
Politicians don't "get" honesty†

† Actually, with these last two they do "get" them, they just choose to ignore and work against them.

Anyway, Google, you had your chance, and you blew it. Pity.

Death by analogy

2011-08-15T13:19:00.002-05:00

[Cross-posted to my tech blog.]

One of my favorite jokes is an oldie that goes something like this:

A man is determined to find the meaning of life, and goes on a quest to find someone who can teach it to him. After traveling far and wide, he is told there is a guru on top of a high, remote mountain who can tell him. The man spends two weeks getting to the mountain and climbing it, narrowly escaping death many times along the way. Finally, he reaches the top, and the guru is meditating there. The man asks, “Wise teacher, what is the meaning of life?” The guru thinks for a minute and then answers "The meaning of life is x" [where x can be “chocolate,” “potatoes,” “bowl of cherries,” “all is one,” etc.] The man is outraged. Shouting, he exclaims, “You mean I have spent all this time and effort, traveled all this way, and almost been killed for you to tell me the meaning of life is x?!??!?” To which the guru replies, “You mean it isn’t?”

I like this joke for a lot of reasons, but one of them is that it is hard to convey meaning, and one of the most common tools we use, analogy, doesn’t necessarily make it any easier. My analogies may not work for you. In fact, they may actively get in the way of your understanding, working at odds of the very purpose of analogy in the first place. We pick analogies without much thought in the midst of a conversation, and then we’re burdened with that analogy, whether it was ultimately the right one or not.

Here is a common scenario I see all the time in my job as a programmer. There will be a meeting or a conference call and at some point it devolves on to some poor technologist to try and explain why a given user/customer request is difficult or impossible, too expensive, not right for the problem at hand or whatever. If the underlying reason is something technical then both sides of the conversation are doomed from the start. An engineer who is tone-deaf to non-technical people will usually go off on a tangent in very technical terms, ignoring the glazed eyes of her audience and confirming everyone's stereotypes of nerds. A more seasoned engineer will know that doesn’t work, so instead will try to “put it in words the users can understand,” i.e., use an analogy.

This seems like a good idea, doesn’t it? I mean, if you can’t get something across to someone, the first thing we all turn to are analogies (stories, parables, etc.) This is not unique to technical people - we all use analogies all the time.

And I’ve come to the conclusion that they harm us more often than not.

The reason is simple - people end up mistaking the analogy for the thing being analogized. And the longer it goes on, the more the analogy takes a life of its own, the more people start talking in terms of the analogy, manipulating the analogy on its own, adding to it, making it into this large, abstract system. Except the problem is the analogy, by definition, is not the thing. And the longer the discussion goes on using the analogy, the farther it gets from the thing being described. But the audience thinks they’re talking about reality. They’ve been given the analogy so that they can understand, and thinking they understand they then begin fiddling with it.

This is where the problems lie.

It doesn’t matter if we’re talking programmers speaking to non-technical users, or pastors giving a sermon on Sunday. To use an analogy, analogies are quicksand. They’re tar pits. They’re where a conversation goes, gets stuck, and can’t rescue itself, sinking further and further into analogy until any semblance to reality is covered over, drowned and lost forever.

I see it happen all the time. I do it. My colleagues do it.

And who can blame the listeners? They’ve been told "x is like y" by someone knowledgeable, so then as they start to discuss x, they think they’re still discussing y.

User 1: What’s wrong with my idea?

Programmer: We won’t be able to implement that and satisfy our users. It’ll be too slow. It’s like a horse-drawn carriage. What we’re proposing instead is a race car. I can’t really explain the technical details to you, but it’ll be as fast as a race car compared to the original idea.

User 2: So we should be able to make it go even faster if we give it a bigger engine, right? I mean, if we put it in “The Cloud” it should be like upping the octane in its fuel formula.

Programmer: Well no, not exactly. You see...

User 1: And if we put knobby tires on it, then it should be able to do Baja racing as well as Indy racing, right? So it should also work on mobile devices, so we can go out in the field with it.

Programmer: Actually, that won’t work because...

User 2: Which then means it should also be capable of cross-country road races, so the system will be able to work even if the user is offline and using it while flying across the country!

Programmer: Stop! Stop! STOP! That’s not what I meant!

[blank stares]

User 1: Well, what did you mean then? You're the one who said it would be like a race car!

Analogies seem most prone to abuse in abstract, esoteric or technical realms. Computers. Theology. Places where it is hard for professionals to describe what they’re really thinking to “users” or “lay people.” The choices are either to use technical language that goes over their heads, or dumb it so far down that the conversation is worthless, or to try and analogize in an attempt to communicate something. But I often wonder if it is really worth it?

Of course, we must use analogies. It would be almost impossible to communicate without them. So in the end, I think the real point of this diatribe is that we should be careful which ones we pick. In programming, correctly and accurately naming things is important - perhaps the most important task there is. I would suggest that choosing analogies is just as important. Because only other programmers are ever going to see the names (variables, functions) inside a program, but business sponsors, analysts and end users are going to be dealing with the analogies used for a long time, and will impact how they think about the system. Similarly with theology (which I could argue is the same as programming, but won’t :).

So be careful out there. The analogies you choose may come home to roost like the salmon returning to their spawning grounds. Or something. :)

What are your thoughts?

Combine demo derby

2011-07-28T09:01:00.000-05:00

This video needs no comment. Shot at the Cole County, MO, fair on Tuesday, July 26, 2011.

From 2011-07-26 - Combine Demo Derby

July 2011 vacation to Colorado - day 8

2011-07-27T05:30:00.000-05:00

Final full day.

Morning hike on narrow gauge trail:

Last views of cabin and creek:

Looking west across South Park from Wilkerson Pass with the Collegiates in the far distance:

From 2011-07-09 - Views of South Park and Collegiate Peaks from Wilkerson Pass

July 2011 vacation to Colorado - days 6 and 7

2011-07-26T05:30:00.000-05:00

Just continuing the vacation thread.

Morning walk up Chalk Creek road:

Buck resting near our cabin:

Morning hike up Grouse Gulch:

Agnes Vaille Falls

2011-07-25T05:30:00.000-05:00

This video is of the falls that were close by our cabin. A half mile trail with a nice payoff. Taken on July 3, 2011. Click through to be able to watch full screen and in 720p HD.

From 2011-07-03 - Agnes Vaille Falls

Iced jasmine green tea

2011-07-24T05:30:00.002-05:00

While we were in Colorado on vacation I got semi-addicted to Lipton's Green Tea with Citrus iced tea. I decided I needed to be a bit healthier when I got back, but the cravings didn't subside and over the past few weeks I've been trying to replicate the flavor. Today I got close. I am recording it here for my own reference.

Ingredients†

2 large "iced tea" green tea bags
2 large "iced tea" decaf green tea bags (so I can drink it at night, too)
3 regular jasmine green tea bags
¼-½ cup honey
¼-½ cup lemon juice
3 quarts boiling water
ice and cold water

† - I used HyVee "store brand" for all the ingredients...well, except for the water and ice.

Directions

Bring the water to a boil and then remove from heat and steep tea for five minutes. Add lemon, honey and ice to gallon pitcher. Then pour in hot tea and enough cold water to fill the pitcher. Stir. Drink copiously. Mmmm...

My 15th 14er

2011-07-23T13:46:00.003-05:00

The view from the top of Mt. Antero on July 5 (10 days before my 51st birthday). I had the summit to myself for 15 minutes, which NEVER happens on a "14er," especially in the summer. Click through to get to album and play video (yes, it's a video).

2011-07-05 - Summit of Mt Antero

What is this, Phoenix?

2011-07-19T12:11:00.001-05:00

July 2011 vacation to Colorado - days 4 and 5

2011-07-16T05:54:00.001-05:00

Some shots (better video to follow later) of my climb of Mt. Antero on July 5 and our whitewater rafting the next day.

Mt. Antero:

Whitewater rafting on the Arkansas River:

July 2011 vacation to Colorado - day 2

2011-07-15T11:23:00.002-05:00

Scenes from our second day in Colorado, July 3.

Agnes Vaille Falls:

Bighorn sheep herd across road from cabin:

July 2011 vacation to Colorado - day 1

2011-07-14T12:43:00.001-05:00

Here are some (by far not all) of the pics from the first day of our vacation to Colorado.

South Park from Kenosha Pass:

Arkansas River valley:

DIY for the win

2011-06-28T10:44:00.001-05:00

Yesterday I was able to fix our four-year-old "high efficiency" clothes washer myself. Besides a $79 part (the door lock - apparently front-load washers are notorious for those failing), it took all of five minutes, thanks to a video on YouTube. Earlier this year I was able to fix our dishwasher by replacing a valve and our water heater by replacing both elements plus the under-spec'ed circuit breaker that kept throwing and causing the elements to burn out prematurely. Again, in both cases it was not just the Internet that helped me figure out what was wrong, but that also showed me via pictures or video how to fix it and convinced me I could do it myself. Whatever did we do without it?

And given that I figure I have saved myself around $500 in service calls this year alone, I wonder how long before Corporate America puts a stop to it?

Dead voices

2011-06-26T10:52:00.002-05:00

I have started reading Walter Brueggemann's The Message of the Psalms, partly for fun, partly in prep for my last assignment for the Old Testament class at the Missouri School of Religion. It will be challenging, but it looks like it may help bring some sense to what has always been for me a very difficult part of the Bible. More on that later.

Anyway, there are two quotes he puts in the preface that I liked:

Poets exist so that the dead may vote.
- Elie Wiesel

Laugh at ministers all you want, they have the words we need to hear, the ones the dead have spoken.
- Rabbit in John Updike's Rabbit is Rich

13 Most Beautiful...Songs for Andy Warhol Screen Tests

2011-06-19T10:59:00.000-05:00

"I've never met a person I couldn’t call a beauty . . . I always hear myself saying, She’s a beauty! or He’s a beauty! or What a beauty! But . . . if everybody’s not a beauty, then nobody is."
—Andy Warhol quoted in The Philosophy of Andy Warhol: (From A to B and Back Again), 1975

We started watching this last night and made it through the first five. We will probably watch the rest one or two at a time. It is not so much a "film" as 13 of the over 500 "screen tests" Andy Warhol shot between 1964 and 1966:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_Tests_(films)

Andy Warhol's
Screen Tests are a series of silent film portraits consisting of several-minute unbroken shots of Factory regulars, Warhol superstars, celebrities, guests, friends, or anyone he thought had "star potential".

The films were made between 1964 and 1966 at Warhol's Factory studio in New York City. Subjects were captured in stark relief by a strong key light, and filmed by Warhol with his stationary 16mm Bolex camera on silent, black and white, 100-foot rolls of film at 24 frames per second. The resulting two-and-a-half-minute film reels were then screened in 'slow motion' at 16 frames per second.
Many of the Screen Tests were arranged in different compilations such as 13 Most Beautiful Women, 13 Most Beautiful Boys, and 50 Fantastics and 50 Personalities. This was done with the intention of pleasing certain audiences who Warhol was exhibiting his art to.
Over 500 screen tests were made, but not all kept.

http://www.plexifilm.com/title.php?id=36

Between 1964 and 1966, Andy Warhol shot nearly 500Screen Tests, beautiful and revealing portraits of hundreds of different individuals, from the famous to the anonymous, all visitors to his studio, the Factory. Subjects were captured in stark relief by a strong keylight, and filmed by Warhol with his stationary 16mm Bolex camera on silent, black and white, 100-foot rolls of film. The resulting two-and-a-half-minute film reels were then screened in slow motion, resulting in a fascinating collection of four-minute masterpieces that startle and entrance, mesmerizing in the purest sense of the word.

The music in the film is supplied by Dean and Britta (Dean Wareham of Galaxie 500 and Luna and his wife Britta Phillips). They did the project in collaboration with the Andy Warhol Museum and apparently have done live shows playing with the films.

Here is the screen test listing in order (watch/listen to the screen tests in highest resolution you can - lower right of YouTube screen):

Ann Buchanan - screen test (the best so far - supposedly Warhol's favorite)
Paul America - screen test
Edie Sedgwick - screen test (followed by Billy Name)
Billy Name
Susan Bottomly - screen test
Dennis Hopper - screen test
Mary Woronov - screen test
Nico - screen test (for both Nico followed by Herko)
Freddy Herko
Richard Rheem - screen tests (for Rheem, Ingrid Superstar and Lou Reed)
Ingrid Superstar
Lou Reed
Jane Holzer - screen test

I would recommend watching them one at a time, and when you have time to just sit and watch for four minutes.

The Dean and Britta soundtrack fits, especially given the influence of the Velvet Underground on Wareham:

“I probably came to Warhol via the Velvet Underground, he has had a huge influence on the history of rock music. You could make a case that he was one of the first punks, in two ways. 1) He suggested that anyone could be an artist, and that an artist could try his hand at anything. 2) Punk rock celebrates the commonplace and the ugly, and elevates it, and I think Warhol did the same.”
—Dean Wareham

Since I am a fan of Galaxie 500 and Luna, I like the music, especially because of its V.U. overtones (and outright cover for Lou Reed):

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/reviews/13-most-beautifulsongs-for-andy-warholrsquos-screen-tests-the-barbican-london-2053384.html

Dean and Britta's hazy, dreamy songs are the perfect soundtrack to the soft black-and-white films of the narcotic-addled subjects. Sometimes, what might have been background instrumentals become instantly poignant and captivating, with the film as a backdrop. The dreamy "Ann Buchanan Theme" takes on more emotional depth and intensity against the film of the crying girl, especially at the point of Wareham's guitar solo, tonight timed meticulously with the tear falling from her chin. The show is given a further layer of emotion with Dean and Britta's brief between-song explanations of the tragic early fates that met many of these characters.
"Teenage Lightning and Lonely Highways" and its themes of pills and casual sex is suitably paired with the test of the devastatingly handsome speed-taking Paul America, but its gentle rendering presents an affectionate, tender portrayal of the self-conscious subject, while Lou Reed is the epitome of cool in his shades and refusal to look into the camera as the band rock out to their version of his "I'm Not a Young Man Anymore". If there is anything that jars in the otherwise cohesive set, it is in the heavier of the numbers when the viewer's focus is distracted between the film and the band.

Still more.

You can stream the whole film from Netflix, or purchase it.

Recommended.

Chili Colorado thing

2011-06-12T20:06:00.033-05:00

This isn't authentic (because of the beans, for one), but I'm writing it down so I'll remember, because it was good. I invented it to use up a pound of grilled sirloin steak I had left over.

Ingredients

½ sweet onion, diced
½ red bell pepper, chopped
1 lb grilled sirloin steak cut in ½" cubes
3-4 Tbs chopped fresh garlic (You heard me - What? you want vampires?)
10-12 black olives, sliced
1 can pinto beans, rinsed
1 can tomatoes and green chilies (I used a house brand, the name brand rhymes with "hotel")
2 Tbs extra virgin olive oil
1 Tbs cayenne pepper (it was "warm" to me - adjust accordingly)
1 Tbs ground cumin
1 tsp oregano
1 tsp salt
1 tsp pepper

Directions

Preheat oven to 350°.

Saute onion, bell pepper and steak in olive oil in enamel Dutch oven until veggies are soft. Turn off heat. Add remaining ingredients. Stir well. Cover and bake for 45-50 minutes. Will feed two to four, although I ate two thirds of it myself! So maybe serve with tortillas and condiments (onions, grated cheese, sour cream, etc.)

Here's a pic:

Please don't understand me so fast

2011-06-11T09:22:00.000-05:00

While sitting in a class on the Old Testament last weekend at MSR it hit me head-on that not even so-called fundamentalists take the Bible literally. They may think they do, but they don't. They can't.

I've been mulling a lecture by Marcus Borg I attended a few months ago in Columbia with another MSR class. He pointed out that Biblical literalism, instead of being "traditional" Christianity as it is portrayed now, is actually a modern movement, starting as a reactionary response to Darwin and other 19th century scientific advances. Before drawing those battle lines it was the metaphorical meanings (plural) that mattered most. Christians saw the Bible as full of metaphor, and that wasn't bad, it was the point. Because with metaphor, with a more-than-literal meaning, you can go to that well (note metaphor ☺) over and over again and draw new lessons from it, instead of being stuck in a "this is what it means for all time, and that's it, take it or leave it" approach.

Here's the crux of my insight during class: if anyone took the Bible completely literally there would be no point to sermons...ever. Because if taken to its logical extreme that would imply that not only is the Bible itself not metaphorical, but that in explaining it one cannot use metaphors either, because that would distort its literal meaning. If the Bible is literally what it says it is, if it literally means what it says it means, then there is no need for further explanation. Follow me here - because any further explanation is an expansion of its meaning. It is a metaphor. And literalists reject interpreting the Bible as metaphor out-of-hand. The-Bible-means-what-it-says-and-that's-it.

And yet I've never sat through a sermon that didn't use metaphors. Usually lots of them.

Interesting, isn't it? Ironic, too.

Four years ago I wrote another post related to this topic, including the following about Genesis. However, it really stands for my whole approach to understanding the Bible:

Here's how I read the God-given truths in Genesis:
God created everything. The universe, the Earth, and everything on it.
That includes you, too.
God provided everything we need. He has a plan for the world, and a plan for us in it.
God is active in the world. He did not just create it and let it spin on from there.
God gave us free will because he wanted friends, not robots. He wanted to give and receive love, which can only come from choice.
With our free will, we created sin.
God wants us to reconcile with Him. He didn't create us to then be angry with us, even as we continue to give him reasons to be (repeat this last point over and over again and you end up with the rest of the Bible).

That pretty well still sums it up for me. In that is lots of room for metaphor that allows the Bible to have a much deeper, richer meaning to me than if I am to take it literally at face value. To return to Dr. Borg (from the handouts to the lecture), a metaphorical approach to the Bible:

[S]ees no fundamental conflict between Christianity and science, and considerable complementarity. They are not rivals - except when science becomes "scientism."

Which actually helps me believe more, not less.

Herein endeth the sermon. What do you think?

You can't get there from here

2011-05-26T06:31:00.020-05:00

I've been bothered by something for quite a while now. Whenever I go look at the Weather Channel's radar page for our area, it shows this:

There's only one problem - more than half of the towns shown on the map above don't exist, and some that do aren't shown. Here is an accurate map from Google that covers the same area:

The towns on the first map aren't just tiny little burgs, nor are they historical site names from what I can tell - they are literally fictitious. The weird thing is the Weather Channel's map is generated by Bing according to the logos in the lower right hand corner. But if I go directly to Bing's map for the area, it shows only the correct towns, too:

There's something kind of "Twilight Zone" about seeing a map of your area and not recognizing most of the names.

A flashback

2011-05-25T20:00:00.019-05:00

One of the earliest memories I have is when I was probably four or so. We lived in a trailer court in Indianola, Iowa. One night there were tornadoes nearby, and the whole park's inhabitants ended up in the basement of the owner's (or manager's) house in the middle of the court. It was like a party - radio on, people talking, lights blazing. It made some sort of impression on me, since I remember it pretty vividly. Obviously it was out of the ordinary and that stuck.

Today reminded me of that. Just before 2:00 senior management at work decided it was time for all of us to head for the training room in the basement because of a tornado warning, and for the next 45 minutes we were all down there - talking, laughing, watching the radar loop on the projection screen. And because my employer never does anything without providing food (one of the many reasons I find it hard to lose weight), there was even candy and cookies and soft drinks! A nice, festive break in the middle of the day while we all sat around waiting to be transported off to Oz.

And then we all returned to our normal lives, and glad they had remained just that - normal.

But it was still fun.

Frazzle Rock

2011-05-04T14:45:00.028-05:00

We are in the midst of prepping for a major application upgrade this weekend at work, and I am leading the technical side of it. There has been lots of issues to work through during testing and I have obsessively compiled a "to-do" list of things to do before I even start the upgrade that is currently at 109 items, out of which I have about 40+ completed. The rest I can't do until Friday night.

Anyway, with all that going on, last week there was a conference call with a vendor on my calendar for a status discussion on another project. I didn't want to bother with it because I was in the middle of chasing problems for the upgrade, but since I am that project's lead for our company I dutifully dialed in and waited impatiently for five minutes with no one else joining the call before I hung up in disgust.

About a minute later I get an email from one of the participants at the vendor asking if I was going to join the call. I was about ready to send off an nasty-gram email about how I had been there and waited for five minutes with no one else joining and then it then hit me - the phone number we were using for the call was my conference bridge account! So I was the one that everyone was waiting on...including myself!

In the words of one of my personal heroes:

"What a maroon."
- Bugs Bunny

Social media is about to collapse

2011-02-25T10:19:00.000-06:00

Or perhaps "implode" is the better term. It is going to fall apart as surely as the Internet 1.0 "dot bomb" era. I had it visually represented to me today while reading an online article. At the end was a "Share this" link. Usually you click on such links and you get four or five options - Twitter, Facebook, Digg, Reddit - the usual suspects. But this link has 333 (I counted) favicons you can click on to share the article. While not all of them are strictly "social media" (for ex., the Gmail link), most of them are in some form or another. And there is no way the majority of those are going to survive. There's no way even 10% of them are still going to be around to talk about in five years.

For your viewing pleasure, here are the four screen shots I had to take to capture them all:

Social media is dead. You heard it here first.

Now we just need to come up with a name to describe the impending implosion. I nominate "The Great Unfriending."

I didn't say nothin'

2011-02-22T18:38:00.000-06:00

"Don't think 'cause I'm talking, we're friends"
- Sneaker Pimps, 6 Underground

I've written before about controlling the sharing of your information with apps on Facebook (go read it - we'll wait). Today, I want to discuss how to act all friendly with real people on FB while keeping the amount of personal info they see under control. Or more to the point, how to allow some people to see more than others. I leave it to you to then figure out how and upon whom to wield it.

As you may or may not know you can create groups on Facebook and put friends into various groups, and then allow them access to various parts of your profile based on what group they are in. At first I had all sorts of groups - "Friends," "Family," "Coworkers," etc., but that got too unwieldy. Instead, I created one group - "Allowed" (as in "allowed to see my stuff"). I then categorized all my Facebook "friends" based on one simple thought - "Am I comfortable with them seeing my wall posts, comments on other people's walls, photos, etc.?" If "yes," then they're in, if "no," then they're out (and if you are reading this as a wall post on Facebook, you're "in" :). Then I set my privacy settings so that most things are only seen by people in the "Allowed" group, and categorized my friends list accordingly. That's it.

The nice thing is you can then accept all "friend" requests and never have to unfriend anyone (because, as you've noticed, that hurts and can cause friction). To virtually unfriend them without actually unfriending them, you can just hide all their wall posts so you don't see their updates and then move them out of the "Allowed" group so they don't see yours. And as you accept friend requests Facebook asks you if you want to put them in any of your groups as part of the acceptance, so once you've set up the "Allowed" group and categorized everyone, it's easy to keep it up to date moving forward. Perfect.

To help get you moving in the right direction, here are a few screen shots to show what I am talking about:

Hope it helps!

Your prose is still too prolix

2011-02-17T06:28:00.000-06:00

I have been experimenting with the five sentences movement in my personal emails (I may try it at work, too). It has been "interesting," and I have failed a few times with full-on rants in a discussion on programming languages with some techie friends (yes, we really argue about such things). What I have found is that it is a worthwhile exercise and an interesting mental discipline and writing approach which, like haiku or Twitter, causes me to focus on what I am writing and how I am expressing myself, and to also have concern for the time people will spend reading it. What I have also concluded is that run-on sentences, like the ones in this five-sentence post, are a lifesaver, and have gained a new appreciation for why the Victorians wrote highly parenthetical sentences that took up a whole page.

Covenant means communication

2011-02-13T13:50:00.000-06:00

As part of a Christian ethics class I am taking at the MSR, I have finished reading two books and am in the process of reading a third. One of the texts I've finished is Christian Ethics: An Essential Guide by Robin W. Lovin. I enjoyed the book very much, and may quote more from it later (I certainly enjoyed it more than the other I've finished, which may end up being a post as well). Following is a passage on covenants and rules, their difference and their inter-relatedness that I found especially thought-provoking (emphases mine):

Covenantal traditions provide for change, not by setting aside relationships that prove unsatisfactory but by distinguishing between the rules that are central to the covenant and those that are interpretations and applications of the more basic rules to new conditions and changing circumstances. The Jewish people have sustained their covenant over many centuries through rabbinic interpretations that restate Torah as halakah, the commandments that Jews follow in their daily walk where they happen to be living now. Protestant Reformers, who gave new emphasis to covenant and to God's commandments in place of the natural law theories of late medieval Christianity, recognized that alongside the basics of church teaching and Christian living that they tried to discern in Scripture, there were many things that were adiaphora, matters that could be decided in different ways by different Christian groups, each being faithful in its own way to the central truths of Christian faith. Political systems based on the rule of law distinguish between ordinary legislation and the constitutional principles on which that legislation is based.

Life in a covenant community then, does not require that one accept all of its rules just as they are. That expectation may, in fact, be more appropriate to a social contract, where you either agree that the rules are in your best interest or you do not; and if you do not, there is not much reason for you to be there. In a covenant community there is a continuing relationship to others in the covenant, and, in a religious covenant, continuing faithfulness to God, who calls the covenant community into being. Part of life in the covenant is learning what is central to its relationships and what is peripheral, what is the commandment of God that makes the covenant people who they are and what is part of the changing ways that this people have tried to walk in faith in different times and places. It is, in fact, by questioning the rules while remaining faithful to the relationship that we find out what is central to the covenant.

Covenant does not preclude interpretations of ancient rules that help us to understand what they mean in new circumstances. What covenant precludes is an individualistic approach to this interpretative task that examines the rules and decides what to keep and what to discard according to one's own set of values and then acts on those decisions without regard for others. Interpretation in a covenant community always involves a great deal of listening, and the decision to act must involve choices not only about what is right and what is wrong, but also about what course of action will sustain this process of communication for the future. The decision to leave a covenant is not made by deciding to do this thing rather than that. It is made by deciding to not try anymore to understand or persuade.

So, questioning is not unfaithfulness, but not communicating is. Something to remember in all our relationships, including our romantic ones as we approach Valentine's Day tomorrow.

Peace.

Two small rants about music

2011-02-12T07:53:00.000-06:00

I love music. It is an integral part of me, and always has been. There is a soundtrack to the movie that is my life. But lately I've been thinking about two things with music that bug me.

1) I have a confession. In 99% of all popular songs, I think "the bridge" sucks (I guess more technically I am talking about "the middle eight"). I mean, you're sitting there bopping along to verse-chorus-verse-chorus and suddenly there is this, this thing that happens and the song takes this left turn off into a down-tempo section that leaves you going "WTF? What happened to my song?" And then suddenly we're back into the verse-chorus thing again and riding toward the home stretch. To me, this brings on a depressing case of "groovus interruptus."

Now there are many songs I love with effective changes in the middle, and many songwriters who are adept using the form. The trouble is most tunesmiths are not Lennon nor McCartney, and so their attempts at following "standard form" takes an otherwise good song and grafts a foreign part onto it that just plain sucks. I notice it quite a bit with pop music, and a lot with modern "praise music" at church.

Me? I'm old-fashioned. I'd rather have a crudely structured, fast and furious "three rounds and you're out" punk song with a good riff than a carefully crafted and layered pop song that then has another piece bolted to it, Frankenstein-like, because that's how songs are "supposed to work."

[The following is about church - so if you're not interested you can bail at this point. And I have to be careful because my wife's in the band there, and we've had a few, um, "discussions" around the topic.]

2) Let's see if this has happened to you. You're attending a church service that uses PowerPoint (ugh) to put up the responsive readings and the words to the songs on the expensive LCD screens now marring the once-beautiful sanctuary. The band is playing some new song, and because you're supposed to participate, you're gamely singing along, sorta getting into it, figuring it out as you go, line by line from the slides. And then, right when you think you have it down, there is a line (usually in the chorus) that changes tempo and is either all-really-fast-words-squished-together-breathlessly or else really...bizarre tempo...changes that...throw off the whole...rhythm. And you resentfully stop singing because you don't know what to expect next and can't keep up.

Know what I mean?

Even though I was in choir for three years in school and jazz stage band for one, I don't read music. Not really. But I know enough to be able to discern a quarter note from a whole note and recognize "get ready, we're gonna sing faster in this next part," but there are no such visual cues when singing along to just words on PPT slides. So those songs, the ones that leave you floundering? I can only deduce one thing from the band choosing to play them - you're not supposed to sing along. They're land mines, little bombs meant to make you stop singing and just listen to the band. It's no longer about participation but performance. And that's fine, if that's what they want it to be, but then don't put the words up on the screen - just let the band play the damned song, like when there's a choir-only hymn in a traditional service, and we'll all sit there and listen appreciatively to the music. It's hard enough for most people to even want to sing in church without putting in extra barriers to it, songs with structures guaranteed to make them feel foolish.

Or is it just me?

It's made out of WHAT?

2011-01-31T18:19:00.000-06:00

With another snowstorm approaching, and this one supposed to be "historic" at that, I thought I'd take a moment to document the construction material of our playroom/sunroom roof. This is the roof I have to go up on and shovel every time it snows more than a few inches because its slope isn't enough to prevent ice damming. But if we get the 21" of snow the NWS has on the upper end of its forecast over the next 36 hours, I'll be up for another reason - weight.

Because not only is it a flat roof, but it's a flat roof made out of a rather "unique" construction material...

Styrofoam™.

Yes, Styrofoam™.

The roof and the parts of the walls that aren't windows (other than the weight-bearing steel posts) are all made of 2½" of closed-cell foam sandwiched between two sheets of 1/16" aluminum. The roof is comprised of 4'x16' sheets of the stuff. Apparently this is more common than you would think. The prior owner said the manufacturer claimed it would hold up to two feet of snow. It's certainly held over a foot of snow and me at the same time, and has also held about 1½" of ice before, so I believe it has good load-bearing capabilities. But I'm not taking any chances, and will be up on the roof multiple times to clear the snow off if it turns out to be as "historic" as the Weather Service claims.

Anyway, here are some pics of the stuff, just so you can marvel at it:

Peace and civility pledge

2011-01-20T06:19:00.000-06:00

[I liked this so much that I completely ripped the post off from Dan's blog. Sorry and thanks, Dan!]

I like this... from the fine folks at Sojourners. You can sign it yourself HERE.

Peace and Civility Pledge
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The church can offer a message of hope and reconciliation to a nation that is hurting and deeply divided. We urge those who claim the name of Christ to "put away from you all bitterness and wrath and anger and wrangling and slander, together with all malice, and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you" (Ephesians 4:31-32).

We pledge to God and to each other that we will lead by example in a country where civil discourse and peacemaking are rare. We will work to model a better way in how we treat each other in our many communities, across religious and political lines. We will strive to create safe and sacred spaces for common prayer and community discussion as we come together to seek God's will for our nation and our world.

1.) We believe Jesus' teaching that "Blessed are those who make peace" (Matthew 5:9). We acknowledge that most of us have been guilty of violence in our hearts and with our tongues. We hold ourselves to the higher standard to which Christ called us: to refrain from not only physical violence but violence of the heart and tongue. "Do not commit murder. Anyone who murders will be judged for it," and "Do not be angry with your brother or sister" (Mathew 5:22-23).

2.) We commit that our dialogue with each other will reflect the spirit of the Scriptures, which tell us, in relating to each other, to be "quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry" (James 1:19).

3.) We believe that each of us, and our fellow human beings, are created in the image of God. This belief should be reflected in the honor and respect we show to each other, particularly in how we speak. "With the tongue we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse those who are made in the likeness of God....this ought not to be so" (James 3:9,10).

4.) We pledge that when we disagree, we will do so respectfully, without falsely impugning the other's motives, attacking the other's character, or questioning the other's faith. We will be mindful of our language, being neither arrogant nor boastful in our beliefs as we strive to "be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love" (Ephesians 4:2).

5.) We recognize that we cannot function together as citizens of the same community, whether local or national, unless we are mindful of how we treat each other. Each of us must therefore "put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body" (Ephesians 4:25).

6.) We commit to pray for our political leaders - those with whom we agree or disagree. "I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made -- for kings and all who are in high positions" (1 Timothy 2:1-2).

7.) We believe that it is more difficult to hate others, even adversaries and enemies, when we are praying for them. We commit to pray for each other, those with whom we agree and those with whom we may disagree, so that we may be faithful witnesses to our Lord, who prayed "that they may be one" (John 17:22).
Affirmed and signed by,

Some scenes from my past lives, part one

2010-12-17T06:59:00.000-06:00

[Cross-posted from my tech blog.]

Some scenes from my past life as a software consultant. While they did not all happen in one place, and while some of it is a LITTLE exaggerated, I swear most of it is true! Or true enough. :)

Better living through user stylesheets

2010-12-11T16:20:00.000-06:00

[Cross-posted from my tech blog.]

Most modern browsers support user stylesheets, i.e., stylesheets that are written by the user, deployed in the browser and treated as the last part of the style "cascade." User stylesheets allow for overriding individual web sites' styles at the local level for such things as accessibility.

They also allow us to quite quickly get rid of annoying things from web sites we visit all the time, without having to install a browser extension (how do you know who wrote your ad blocking extension and what they're doing with the browser access you've granted their app?) In my case, the annoying things I wanted rid of were the sad puppy-dog-eyes faces at the top of Wikipedia pleading for more money. That campaign's been going on forever now, it seems - even public radio and TV get the point and only shake us down twice a year for a week at a time.

Anyway, I wanted rid of that annoyance, so with a bit of sleuthing I determined what tags were holding the problematic content and quickly came up with some CSS to hide it. Dropping that CSS into the user stylesheet in the right magic location immediately rid all the pages of the ad and Wiki was back to looking like its old self again.

If you have even a slightly technical bent, you can benefit from this, too. The following instructions presume Chrome as the browser, but this article tells you the locations and CSS files to use if you are using other browsers - the stylesheet file content should remain the same.

For Chrome, you need to find the Custom.css file. On Windows Vista/7/2008, it is located at the following (replace  with, ahem, your user id):

   C:\Users\\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\User Data\Default\User StyleSheets\

[Presumably on Windows XP it will be under C:\Documents and Settings\ in a similar location.]

For Mac OS X, it is at:

   ~/Library/Application Support/Google/Chrome/Default/User StyleSheets/

On Ubuntu Linux it is found here:

   ~/.config/google-chrome/Default/User StyleSheets

In all three locations you should find a file called Custom.css. Open this file for editing (Notepad is handy on Windows, otherwise use the editor of your choice). It will probably be empty. Inside the file, place the following line (letter case is important!):

#siteNotice { display: none; }

Save the file. Navigate Chrome to Wikipedia and you should no longer see the ~~shakedown~~ pleading banner!

Caveats:

You will never see any other site announcements from Wiki, either, as long as they continue to use the siteNotice tag id for thediv they wrap site announcements in.
If any other site you visit happens to use an id attribute on an element and call it "siteNotice," you won't see that content either.

I consider both of the above a small price to pay to not have to look at Jimmy Wales again when all I'm interested in is the capital of Albania.

Enjoy!

Christian Buzzword Bingo, redux

2010-12-06T18:56:00.000-06:00

Back in 2008 I wrote a "Christian buzzword bingo" generator based on an idea of a pastor friend. Now as part of a revamping of my personal web site to be more modern and "mobile friendly" (still a work in progress), I have updated the vocabulary list, including a bunch of new terms I've learned since starting to attend MSR. It's all in good fun, although there's also a purpose, as I commented in a follow-up post:

I think as time goes on I am more and more leaning toward trying to use less and less code words. I just don't think they're necessary. For example, Jesus was able to talk about "salvation" without ever mentioning "soteriology". So I am not so sure the concepts in the Bible need 2000 years of theology to explain them - otherwise the people to whom they were originally spoken/written wouldn't have gotten them, either, eh? If one can't preach Christ crucified and have someone understand without resorting to theological language, then the messenger is wrong, not the Message. At least that's how I see it.

You can play my buzzword bingo game here.

Following is the vocabulary list as of v1.5, December 6, 2010:

Acculturation
Acolyte
Acts 29 Church
Agape
Altar
Altar Call
Amen
Anabaptist
Anointing
Apocalyptic
Apocrypha
Apologetics
Apostle
Apostle's Creed
Apostolic
Apostolic Succession
Arminian
Assimilation
Atonement
Attractional Church
Authentic
Authentic Church
Beatitudes
Believer's Baptism
Bishop
Blessings
Body of Christ
Brethren
By Faith Alone
By Grace Alone
By Scripture Alone
Called
Calling
Canon
Catechism
Catholic
CCM
Charismatic
Christ-Follower
Christian Growth
Christian Lifestyle
Christological
Church
Church Fathers
Church Growth
Church Health
Church Multiplication
Church Planting
Clergy
Clerical
Close Communion
Community
Complementarianism
Confessional Church
Confirmands
Confirmation
Congregants
Conservative
Consubstantiation
Contemplative Prayer
Contemporary
Context
Contextualization
Covenant
Conversion
Convicted
Creation
Credal Church
Creed
Curate
Damnation
Damned
Denomination
Deacon
Deuteropauline
Devil
Devotion
Devotional
Die to Our Old Selves
Disciple
Discipling
Divine Office
Doctrine
Doxology
Ecclesia
Ecclesiology
Ecumenism
Eikon
Elder
Emergent
Emerging
Eschatology
Eucharist
Evangelical
Evangelism
Evil
Exalted
Exegesis
Fallen
Fellowship
Form Criticism
Free Will
Full Immersion
Fully Devoted Follower of Christ
Gifting
God's People
God's Temple
Gospel
Grace
Great Commandment
Great Commission
Heaven
Heavenly
Hell
Heresy
Hermeneutics
Heterodoxy
Hierarchal
High Church
Historical Criticism
Homiletics
Homily
House Church
Hypostatic Union
Iconography
Idol
Idolatry
Immaculate Conception
Incarnational
Infant Baptism
Intentional Living
Intercession
Intercessionary Prayer
Jesus-Follower
John 3:16
Judgment
Justification
Kerygma
Kingdom of God
Laity
Lay Person
Leadership
Lectionary
Legalism
Liberal
Liberation Theology
Liturgical Church
Liturgy
Lost Souls
Low Church
Mediation
Mega-church
Metanarrative
Minister
Ministry
Missiological
Mission
Missional
Missional Church
Mission Statement
Modern
Monastic
Narrative
Narthex
Natural Church Development
Neo-orthodoxy
New Testament Church
Nicene Creed
'Normal' Christian
Ordained
Ordination
Orthodoxy
'Outer Courts' Christian
Outreach
Paraclete
Parousia
Pastor
Pastoral Care
Pastoral Counseling
Pauline
Penal Substitution
Pentacost
Pentacostal
Pharisee
Postapostolic
Postapostolic Christians
Post-modern
Praise Team
Praxis
Prayer
Prayer Warrior
Prayerful
Preacher
Presbyter
Predestination
Pretribulation Dispensationalism
Priesthood of All Believers
Principalities and Powers
Proof-Texting
Prophecy
Prophet
Pseudepigraphy
Prosperity Gospel
Psalm 23
Psalmody
Purpose Driven
Purpose Statement
Quiverful
'Real' Christian
'Red Letter' Christian
Redaction Criticism
Redemption
Reformed
Relevance
Righteousness
Sacerdotal
Sacramental
Sacred
Sacred Space
Sacrifice
Sacrilegious
Sacristy
Sacrosanct
Saint
Sainthood
Salvation
Sanctification
Satan
Scripture interprets Scripture
Seeker-Sensitive
Self-Interpreting
Semiotics
Sermon
Servant Heart
Shun
Simple Church
Sin
Small Church
Social Gospel
Sola Fide
Sola Gratia
Sola Scriptura
Soteriology
Source Criticism
Speaking in Tongues
Spiritual Maturity
Spiritual Warfare
Strayed
Substitutionary Atonement
Sustainable
Syncretism
Synoptic Gospels
Systematic Theology
Tetragrammaton
Textual Criticism
Theologian
Theology
Theophany
'The' Church
The Fall
Tithe
Traditional
Transfiguration
Transubstantiation
Triune
Uncatechized
Unchurched
Universalism
Unscriptural
VBS
Verger
Vestments
Vestry
Virgin Birth
Visioning
Vocation
What does that look like to you?
Witnessing
Works
Worship Leader
Worship Team
Your Body is a Temple
Youth Minister
Youth Program.

As always, feel free to send me suggestions or leave them in the comments below.

We're ready for some good news, please

2010-12-05T13:02:00.000-06:00

This past week has been a real roller coaster. Actually more like a luge ride, since a roller coaster goes up once in a while. On Tuesday afternoon we found out we're probably a single-income household again, on Wednesday morning at work it was unexpectedly announced that my department was "between bosses," and Wednesday afternoon the biggest (and worst) news hit - that Les has cancer in one of her kidneys. We spent the next 36 hours mulling the various "options" (if getting to decide between multiple bad choices can be considered "options"). Friday morning she called the urologist's and scheduled her nephrectomy (I didn't even know what that word was a week ago), which will be on January 3. Happy new year! The good news is the other kidney is "beautiful" (urologist's word for it), so once the cancer is out and the recovery period is over Les should be good to go...pun intended.

If bad news comes in threes then we should be done for a while (in fact more than done, considering the twins' scholastic standings right now). Which is good, we need the break. Needless to say the next month is going to be spent in anticipation, and then there's Les's recovery period of probably 5-6 weeks - luckily they can do the operation laproscopically. My honey is going through all the emotions you'd expect, which is understandable.

So far I've been much calmer. Not that I don't care - I do, obviously. But it's been almost an overload to the point of having to just say, "Here Lord, hold this for me, will ya?" And then feeling like He is. Which is good, because it lets me be stronger for Les. And I have this inner feeling of trust that it is going to all be fine.

It is hard to count blessings at a time like this, and yet I do. I am thankful her other kidney is healthy. I am thankful we live in a time and place where the modern medical miracle of surgery is even available to us. I am thankful we have insurance. I am thankful for family on both sides and friends who are completely there for us. I am thankful I have a job, and that it's full of understanding and supportive people. I am thankful it was caught in time. Most of all I am thankful for my wife and plan on spending decades more together with her.

If you pray, then prayers are appreciated.

So, that's what's up in our lives. What's up with you? Got your Christmas shopping done yet?

Simple lemon pie recipe

2010-11-29T20:40:00.001-06:00

For over a decade I've loved the ease of making key lime pies with Mrs. Biddle's key lime juice using the recipe on the bottle:

Ingredients

9" graham cracker pie crust
1 14 oz can sweetened condensed milk
4 egg yolks
3 or 4 oz key lime juice (more is better if you like it tart like I do)

Directions

Preheat oven to 350°. Place condensed milk in mixer bowl and mix in egg yolks. Then slowly add the key lime juice and mix well at low speed (actually, if you want to cheat you can just dump everything in the bowl and mix it up - it works). Put mixture into pie crust and bake for 20 minutes. Cool in refrigerator for a few hours to thicken. Serve plain (my fav) or with meringue or whipped cream. Mmmm...

It's just that easy!

Anyway, Erin made one recently for her school's Thanksgiving lunch (and no students tried it, only her teachers - kids now days!) That got me to thinking about the basic pie recipe and tonight I tried the same recipe except substituting fresh-squeezed lemon juice instead of key lime juice. It was good, if a bit less tart (even with 4 ounces of juice), so next time I'll probably put in some grated lemon peel as well. But even so, it was tasty. Try it!

Mmmm...pie...

You might be an old hippie if...

2010-11-25T11:29:00.000-06:00

...listening to this song is part of your Thanksgiving tradition:

Happy Thanksgiving, y'all!

Happiness is a warm truck

2010-11-24T15:27:00.000-06:00

Well, it's been well over two years, but I finally can park the truck in the garage again. For a long time I maintained that it was a basic tenet of my religion that garages are meant to be parked in, because God wants us to be happy. Then a couple of years ago I moved it out to make room for most of the twins' belongings during a "difficult" time at school. There they festered for a while, with the kids slowly mining through it all over time for what they wanted back. Shortly after that the garage door springs broke. Between the two, every time I went into the garage I would just get depressed. Yeah, I can let things fester for a long time.

So, on Monday I spent my first weekday of vacation and cleaned it all out and took a bunch of stuff to the dump and reorganized everything. Then today Dad came over and helped me fix the springs (I also ended up fixing Les's garage door - long story). And with a bit more rearranging, I am now able to park the truck in the garage again, just in time for winter! Huzzah! It is actually supposed to ice rain/sleet/snow tomorrow, so it's just in time.

What you see at the bottom of the picture is a roll of carpet I've had for about two years now, too. It is meant to replace the (original, ca. 1979) green shag carpeting in Jon's bedroom. I keep putting it off because I am intimidated by the idea of laying carpet myself, but I think I may set that as a goal for my vacation the week after Christmas, along with some much-needed painting. We haven't painted since we moved into the house in the summer of 2001, and we still don't have curtains in the living room window. I think it's about time...

Vanishing point

2010-11-23T11:45:00.000-06:00

I like to cook. In fact, I'd count it as a hobby. I cook most meals from scratch - well, I don't grind the wheat to make the pasta, but you know what I mean. One reason I like to cook is that I like to eat (I like it a bit too much, in fact, although the weight loss program is continuing with some success - 10% in a little under three months). Another reason is I like to cook for others. It makes me feel like I am caring for them, providing for them.

But I have to admit, cooking for a household with five picky eaters is starting to be a depressing grind. It seems like no matter what I make at least one person, and often two or three, will turn their nose up at it. We have one twelve year old who would live on nothing but bread and Cheerios if we let her. The other twin can't stand foods where multiple ingredients touch each other - his idea of hell is where they'd serve nothing but casserole, stews and sauce-covered starches for eternity. All three of the youngest won't eat tomato sauce on their pasta (I always coat the drained pasta with some extra virgin olive oil, so there's that), and only the girls like Alfredo sauce. There are only two (2 - dos, zwei, deux) vegetables that all five will eat: broccoli and corn. That's it. Any other vegetable side and I can predict how many will not eat it with 99% accuracy. Only one other person in the house likes beans (how can you not like beans?).

Last night was perhaps the perfect example - along with spaghetti I cooked Italian sausages (because four out of five like those), but since they were fresh-made by a local butcher and had different seasonings than the factory-made ones they're used to everyone decided they didn't like them (actually, I thought they were really pretty damned tasty). So now I have two more pounds of sausages in the freezer that I will have to figure out what to do with - I guess I'll eat them all and gain some of that 10% back.

Even on nights where everyone is enthusiastic about a meal, it is usually because I've had to cook a ton of different things so that each person has something to like. "Mexican night" is a perfect example. It started out simple, "taco night." But now, just to have something on the table that everyone will eat, I usually make tacos, tostadas, burritos, quesadillas, refried beans and once in a great while enchiladas (only two of us like those, so it's hardly worth the effort). One doesn't like anything with meat. One doesn't like any meat but ground beef. And on and on.

Remember Venn diagrams from school? The way you could use them to show "unions" and "intersections" between sets? Well, here is the Venn diagram of the food preferences in this house:

I'm the big outer circle because I am truly an omnivore. I will eat pretty much everything (I'm not saying I'll eat meal worms or kidneys, but you get my drift). The other five circles are the people I cook for. Each has their own sets of overlapping tastes, although no one's lines up completely. See that little bit of red in the center? That's the intersection of everyone's tastes. That's corn. And broccoli. And pasta (before putting on sauce!) Baked potatoes. Rice. Maybe a broiled chicken. And that's about it. Makes for an exciting palette of ingredients from which to try and cook seven meals a week, eh?

It sure is depressing. Some days I just feel defeated about the whole thing. Les has offered to cook more but that really doesn't "solve" anything, because then it will be four people not eating what she cooks instead of not eating what I cook. Maybe for a morale break it would help, but it is not a long-term solution.

Ultimately I just don't understand "picky" (finicky, fussy, particular, spoiled, choosy, difficult, hard to please, pain-in-the-ass - pick your term) eaters. As I've said for years, "Picky eating is not a survival skill." I am completely serious when I say that if I didn't make sure there were snack foods available at least two of the kids would literally starve to death (and there are controls on when and how much those are allowed, or that'd be all they'd eat).

Sigh. Grumble, mumble, bitch and moan.

Anyone else out there have to cook for a passel of picky partakers? How do you deal with it?

Rules for giving gifts to children...(redux)

2010-11-20T08:28:00.000-06:00

[I try not to be one of those bloggers who reposts a lot, but this is sort of becoming a tradition for me. I wrote it in 2006 for some friends, and have posted it here three of the last four Novembers. It's something to think about as Christmas approaches, although the advice holds for any time of year.]

Over the years I have made some observations about the art and practice of giving gifts to children other than one's own. It seems that such situations allow many people to let out their inner sadist and take out whatever repressed rage they have built up on the recipient's parents. They may act like they don't know that's what they're doing, but you'd have to be really stupid to not understand the impact of your gifts on the household being so afflicted. This is especially true when such gifts come from other parents. They know what they're doing, and unless revenge for prior gifts is their motive, there is no excuse or explanation other than outright hostility toward the target's, er, recipient's parents. Perhaps you should re-evaluate your relationship with such people.

So, as a guideline from one parent to those of you who have the opportunity now or in the future to give gifts to the children of others I offer the following list of gift-giving guidelines.

1) Do not give anything you're not willing to get back as a reciprocal gift - This can be considered the "Golden Rule" of gift giving, and if it is followed, then for the most part the rest of the rules will happen naturally. If you decide to give little Timmy bongos for his third birthday, then when your child's next birthday comes up, don't be surprised if Timmy's parents reward your child with some sort of percussion instrument (or complete drum kit if they're a teen). And when that happens, just remember - you asked for it. This can be especially dangerous between two sets of parents, because it can lead to brinksmanship of the most dangerous kind ("They gave Jessica that damned kazoo for her birthday, so I say we give their little Clarence a trumpet").

2) Do not give gifts with thousands of small parts - Legos sure are fun...until you've stepped on your fiftieth one in bare feet. Legos, Tinker Toys, Lincoln Logs, Lite Brites, jigsaw puzzles, marbles, beads, most board and card games and myriad other gifts are of a "play once, lose forever" nature. Unless the child has OCD the pieces will never all be put back in the same place, ever again (unless the parents do it, and frankly that just isn't going to happen - we're too busy making sure the kids don't self-immolate). So instead the parts and pieces just float around the house, turning up in the damnedest places (like under your stockinged foot). They exhibit a self-mobile migratory capability that is somewhat scary. We are still vacuuming up pieces from gifts that are four or five years old. These are classic candidates for the "Mommy and Daddy are putting this gift up to save it for you because it's special" category - which then engenders arguments with the kids when they pester to have the gift gotten down so they can play with it - "We'll pick it up, we promise!" Just say no.

3) Do not give gifts with "some assembly required" - Unless you're willing to do the assembly yourself, be prepared to stop over some time in the future and see the gift still in pieces, strewn all over the playroom, and with some of the pieces broken and pitched or vacuumed, so that it can never be assembled. If you want to give Barbie's Modern Kitchen or Batman's Secret Headquarters as a gift, fine - just put it together first before bringing it over, or be the cool uncle or friend of the family and help the kid put it together right when you give it to them. Otherwise, please abstain.

4) Do not give electronic gifts that make noise - I repeat, "Do not give electronic gifts that make noise". If you feel the need to violate this precept, then at least make sure that as many of the following are applicable:

a) The device can be given an emergency batterectomy in the field with no special tools.

b) The device has a headphone jack with which to restrict its squalling to the ears of the victim, er, child.

c) The device CAN BE SHUT OFF. NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER GIVE GIFTS THAT MAKE NOISE SIMPLY BY BEING TOUCHED OR DETECTING MOTION. If you ever want to be scared out of your wits, try walking through a darkened playroom after the kids are in bed and have Big Bird suddenly emit his slightly psycho laugh in the dark because some other toy in the toy box shifted and pressed against his tummy.

5) Do not give gifts beyond the child's age with the instruction "this is for when they're older" - If that's the case then give it to them when they're older (does that not seem obvious?). Otherwise it's just one more damned thing for the receiving family to store, look after, clean and ultimately remember that they have and pull it out of storage at the appropriate time. In addition, please be aware not only of the suggested age range on the packaging, but of the actual emotional and psychological age of the recipient and adjust accordingly. Something suitable for an average four year old may not be suitable for a four year old with ADHD and anger control issues.

6) Do not give gifts that make a mess - This may really seem curmudgeonly because paints, clay and Play-Doh, "goo", Easy Bake ovens and all that may look like great fun, and gosh, they are great fun - for the kids. For the people whose house they are unleashed in, they are simply a cleaning nightmare (no matter how "water soluble" the item says it is, it isn't - there's "water soluble" paint permanently stained into our carpet). If you want the kids to play with such things then have them ready at your house for when they come to visit. Enjoy!

7) Do not give gifts that are alive - Unless you're willing to pay the vet bills and take care of them whenever the family feels the need to leave for a weekend, week or month, pets are best left as a decision of the parents, no matter how much you think "The kids are really ready for a dog (cat, fish, gerbil, bird, snake or whatever)". Also be prepared to be the person who has to explain to the child(ren) about death when said live gift stops being live.

8) Do not give gifts that promote intra-sibling rivalry - If you give a super-really-neato gift to one and not another then you have just unleashed an ongoing struggle over that gift that will not stop until:

a) one of the children dies, possibly in a fight over the gift,

b) the gift is broken, possibly in a fight over the gift, or,

c) the gift is removed from the scene (typically at night after bedtime, and hence becomes "lost" in parental speak) and put in storage or thrown away by the parents in a vain attempt to bring peace to the valley.

9) Do not give gifts that promote intra-sibling violence - Need I say that gifts that look like toy weapons will cause the kids to use them as real weapons? Hence play swords, spears, bows and arrows and guns will all be used as swords, spears, bows and arrows and guns on the nearest target, typically a sibling or a pet or possibly a parent (although that will only happen once before the item is then sent to the "Island of Misfit Toys", my term, a la the Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer cartoon, for the large tub in the garage that used to hold such problem gifts).

10) Do not give gifts that require the whole family present to use - Oh, sure, in you're head you're thinking, "This will be great for them, and will foster 'family nights' and all sorts of cheerful togetherness." Instead, you've just sentenced the parents to either endless fighting with the kids over why tonight is (again) not the right night to get out that gift and play with it, or to succumbing to a grumbling round of play while having other things (like bills, laundry, dinner, housecleaning) not get done instead. Either way you've increased the parents' stress levels, and unless you're actually a hateful person and that was your intention, it's better if you gave things that allow the child to be "self-amusing" (which is the greatest gift of love - at least for the parents).

A few moments with Merton

2010-11-15T20:59:00.000-06:00

The following is from one of the books I am currently (re)reading, Thomas Merton's New Seeds of Contemplation:

"It should be accepted as a most elementary human and moral truth that no man can live a fully sane and decent life unless he is able to say 'no' on occasion to his natural bodily appetites. No man who simply eats and drinks whenever he feels like eating and drinking, who smokes whenever he feels the urge to light a cigarette, who gratifies his curiousity and sensuality whenever they are stimulated, can consider himself a free person. He has renounced his spiritual freedom and become the servant of bodily impulse. Therefore his mind and his will are not fully his own. They are under the power of his appetites. And through the medium of his appetites, they are under the cnotrol of those who gratify his appetites. Just because he can buy one brand of whisky rather than another, this man deludes himself that he is making a choice; but the fact is that he is a devout servant of a tyrannical ritual. He must reverently buy the bottle, take it home, unwrap it, pour it out for his friends, watch TV, 'feel good,' talk his silly uninhibited head off, get angry, shout, fight and go to bed in disgust with himself and the world. This become a kind of religious compulsion without which he cannot convince himself that he is really alive, really 'fulfilling his personality.' He is not 'sinning' but simply making an ass of himself, deluding himself that he is real when his compulsions have reduced him to a shadow of a genuine person." - pgs. 85-6

Free and worth every penny

2010-11-14T14:03:00.000-06:00

I have long lauded Freecycle (and now ReUseIt, a similar network with less restrictive rules). These are localized lists that allow people to ask for and offer items, as long as they're free. The idea is one man's junk is another's treasure, and by giving away stuff you no longer want and can't be bothered to set up a garage sale for (or don't think it'd sell), you keep those things out of the landfill. And that's a fine idea. I've used both over the past few years to get rid of a lot of clutter - from a half roll of chicken wire to old computer books.

But I think I am going to stop. And the reason is quite selfish. It has to do with my time. Let's see if I can tell a joke to explain it:

A guy wanted to get rid of an old refrigerator, so he put it along the street in front of his home with a sign that said, "Free." It sat there for a week, no one touched it. Then he got a bright idea and put a sign on it that said "$10," and within hours someone had stolen it.

The point being that if something is free to someone, they don't value it very much. Which I wouldn't care about, until I post something on ReUseIt, get flooded with "Me! Me! Pick me!" emails, and then try to set up a time for them to come and get it, or, if I am feeling nice, for me to meet them somewhere to turn it over. And I would say the majority of the time I am stiffed - the first (and often second, and sometimes third) person just doesn't show. No call, no email - nothing. So I am out my time sitting around at home waiting for them, or driving wherever to meet them, and I have to say it makes me angry.

Now, I want to save the polar bears as much as the next guy, and hence don't want everything I no longer need going to the dump, but at some point the PITA factor just gets too large. So I am not saying "never" to both networks, but there's going to be a lot of stuff that probably ends up in the garbage. It's sad, but I don't feel like chasing people down for days (sometimes weeks) just to give them something they've strongly expressed they've wanted. "Take it! Take it!!!"

Faith is not a transaction

2010-11-13T16:25:00.000-06:00

I have started reading The Romance of the Word: One Man's Love Affair With Theology by Robert Farrar Capon. It is a reprint of three of his earlier books - An Offering of Uncles, The Third Peacock and Hunting the Divine Fox. I've not read Capon before, but since his name and quotes of his keep turning up in books I like (most recently in The Other Six Days), I decided to give him a try.

Last night I finished the preface, and I have to say it wasn't an easy journey. There was something in the tone that I found a bit off-putting. It may just be getting used to a new voice, a new way of saying things. But once he got the autobiographical things out of the way, it got good, quick. The last half of the preface was worth the read by itself. In it he discusses grace and its relationship with transactional religion (hint: there is no relationship). I found the following three quotes (along with some others I am leaving out for brevity) to be thought-provoking, to put it mildly.

"There is no such thing as the Christian religion because Christianity, at its heart, is not a religion. Rather, it's the announcement by God in Christ that whatever it was that the religions of the world were trying to do and couldn't (make God think kindly of you, win wars, end poverty, get the crops to grow, stop your brother-in-law from drinking too much at your parties), the whole rigmarole has been canceled. In Jesus, God has put up a 'Gone Fishing' sign on the religion shop. He has done the whole job in Jesus once and for all and simply invited us to believe it - to trust the bizarre, unprovable proposition that in him, every last person on earth is already home free without a single religious exertion: no fasting till your knees fold, no prayers you have to get right or else, no standing on your head with your right thumb in your left ear and reciting the correct creed - no nothing. All you need is faith that the entire show has been set to rights in the Mystery of Christ - even though nobody can see a single improvement. Yes, it's crazy. And yes, it's wild, and outrageous, and vulgar. And any God who would do such a thing is a God who has no taste. And worst of all, it doesn't sell worth beans. But it is Good News - the only permanently good news there is - and therefore I find it absolutely captivating." - pg. 20

But that didn't hit me half as hard as this:

"A question arises, however: Is this eucharistic 'change of status' an ordinary, transactional alteration, like the change of flour into bread? Does the act of celebrating the Eucharist 'mix up a batch of Jesus'? Does Jesus, during the service, show up in a room from which he was previously absent? Do benefits we were formerly without suddenly begin to flow our way in Communion?

"The answer to those questions, I think, has to be a flat no. The faithful who gather in the church before the rite begins are already, Christians believe, the body of Christ. The forgiveness, the reconciliation, and the new life they have in Jesus are already and fully theirs. They do not, therefore, receive an accretion of Jesus. It's not that their tank was topped off with Jesus the previous Sunday but now needs a refill. They never lost a drop of him, because he never left them. They couldn't get any more of him than they already have. But if that's the case, do they really receive him? And if so, how do you go about theologizing that reception?

"You refuse to make the Blessed Sacrament a transaction, that's how. You say it is the presence of Jesus, but you don't make it out to be an insertion of Jesus. You say the eucharistic presence is a mirror held up to the church's face so it can see the Jesus it already has. You say it's a dinner with the Jesus who's already in the house. You say any non-transactional thing you can think of - just as long as you say it's a party the church is already at and not some limousine that brings Jesus to the church's door. And those same rules apply to the other sacraments as well." - pg. 22-3

If those two didn't shake you up enough, then how about this? (emphasis mine):

"The church doesn't take Jesus to the heathen: Jesus, because he is God, is already intimately and immediately present to the heathen before we arrive. And he's present in all his power, not only as Creator but as Redeemer. They've already got him, they're already home free, they're already saved - but they don't know it because they haven't heard it. What they need is not a dose of Jesus to cure them but some sacrament of the fact that they're already cured in Jesus. And baptism, as the constitutive sacrament of the church, is precisely that sign. F.D. Maurice said that when you baptize an infant, you baptize the whole world: if you can say all that wonderful stuff over some two-week-old who knows nothing, believes nothing, and has done nothing, you ipso facto say it over everybody. Jesus is the Light of the world, not the Lighting Company of the world. neither he nor his church is an electricity supplier you have to get wired up to in order to have light in your life. He is the Sun, not a power utility; all you have to do is trust him enough to open your eyes and presto! You had light all along." - pg. 25

I think it's going to be a good book.