Fasting

March 11, 2011 under Uncategorized

When the Pharisees condemned Jesus (and his disciples) for their failure to fast, they were blind to all the fasts that Jesus was undertaking.

He was fasting from his home (the Son of Man has no place to lay his head), his family (here are my mother and brothers) and from having his own way (the son only does what he sees the Father doing).

His disciples were at the beginning of a long and similar fast which would ultimately carry them to their deaths.

Jesus understood fasting. He knew that the purpose of fasting is not that we should remain hungry, but that we receive food of a different, better kind (whoever gives up these things for my sake shall not fail to receive many times more, in this age and in the age to come).

Jesus understood God’s words,

“Why spend money on what is not bread, and your labor on what does not satisfy?
Listen, listen to me and eat what is good, and your soul will delight in the richest of fare.”

What the Pharisees could not see was Jesus’ heart; they neither knew nor cared about the real cost of his obedience to God.

Jesus fasted from joy (he set his face like flint; “let this cup be taken from me”)
from rest (could you not watch one hour with me?)
from self protection (you would not have any authority over me were it not given to you by God)
and finally, briefly, from the presence of God himself (my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?).

It is precisely by the act of divesting (in heart, mind, soul and strength) that we become free to receive from God the spiritual fruit and the greater weight of glory that he has in mind for us.

Had Jesus stayed at home with his family and his own desires, he would never have received the food God intended for him – that the Son of Man be lifted up and glorified.

He gave more, and received more, than anyone else ever has, or will. He gave all, received all.
Is there any question why the elders up in heaven cry, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain?”

comments: 0 » tags: , , , , , ,

Bedtime Story Corner – Dahl

January 8, 2011 under Uncategorized

Today it is Bedtime Story Corner. So obviously I’m going to blog about Children’s Stories and my mother.

You’re familiar with Roald Dahl, yes? He of the Big Friendly Giant, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda?

My mother didn’t like his stories. She discouraged her children from reading his stuff. Oh, we did (after all, we read *everything*), but she didn’t approve.

It’s hard to argue with Dahl’s brilliance as an author. Certainly you can’t dispute his fame. Dahl’s books are fun. They are creative  - outrageously imaginative – exciting and captivating. But they’re nasty.

Nastiness isn’t just about what happens or doesn’t happen in a story. It’s a flavour. It’s hard to quantify nastiness and perversion beyond the tried and true “I know it when I see it.” But often that’s enough. Some books just have that flavour that… just isn’t right.

The difficulty with flavour is that it’s nearly impossible to describe yet often it’s the most important aspect of a dish. It’s subtle. Flavour in writing comes from the mind. It is built on the kind of images the author is able to conceive, on the sort of characters they imagine people to be.

What went on in Dahl’s mind? We can only guess.

His latest biographer, Donald Sturrock, has written about the grim misery that characterised his time at Repton, the public school where the savagery of older pupils to younger ones, and the coldness of masters to boys, almost drove him to suicide. The cruelty of the place revolted him.



It is given to few young men of 27 to sleep with glamorous older women for his country, but this is pretty well what Dahl did. He was in New York and Washington to put the British case to the Americans, working for the Canadian buccaneer, William Stephenson, and he did so, in part, through affairs with influential women.

A story is very much the brainchild (and, not to be forgotten, heartchild) of it’s author. At least, a good story is. Anyone can write a false story, but usually it is not very good because the author doesn’t know what they are writing about.

Now, no-one lives a fairytale life. Everyone has bumps, bruises and pieces that are unfit for children. The question is, “What do we do with those?”

[Warning - brimstone usage ahead] We have to share these pieces with children in some manner or other because our children will find out soon enough anyway. If we don’t there will be hell to pay. And we can’t pretend the nastiness doesn’t exist because it is damned pernicious stuff and it leaks out anyway. See Dahl.

Particularly, Dahl’s stories touch on my mother’s particular pet peeve about mainstream media:

When someone is a villain it becomes okay to be mean and vindictive and morally twisted towards them. Because they are bad. (Did I mention that Dahl fought in WWII as a fighter pilot)?

(My mother doesn’t like the movie “Home Alone”, either. Sticking nails up through the floorboards really epitomizes the nastiness of this dynamic. Actually, that whole film is about how it’s okay (and fun) to be morally twisted towards bad people.)

But hold on a second, I just remembered something! I’m young. I’m a man. I don’t have small children. I shouldn’t be talking about children’s stories, I should be talking about Action Films. So, let’s switch gears and talk about Lethal Weapon.

Lethal Weapon – such a great film! Not really a film for kids, though. It starts off with drugs and nudity before continuing with gratuitous violence, torture and swearing.

But for all that, at the very end of it, a muddy, half naked, serial-killing Riggs decides that he’s not going to snap Mr. Joshua’s neck between his thighs. He allows the other officers to take Mr. Joshua into custody, and when he does,  he makes a moral statement beyond what shows up in Roald Dahl’s books.

Because ultimately, being morally twisted isn’t about what happens to the other guy. It’s about what happens to you.

Sadly, Dahl’s books never take us that far.

Moderation done right

January 5, 2011 under Uncategorized

Tonight I went to watch a hockey game; the home team lost but that’s okay because the other team was Detroit. Also, the home team was the Oilers and they’re not very good. Yet.

One of the fascinating aspects of pro sports is how referees interact with (or ignore) players. There are different conventions in different sports.

Soccer referees generally just wave players away. They don’t say much.
Rugby referees call the team captains over and explain to both of them who they’re penalizing and why.
Baseball umpires grunt.
American football referees put their hands on their hips and announce the guilty party over the PA.
Hockey referees chat with the players as they either shove or drag them away from other players.

It’s an interesting dance that balances the sanctity of the office with the necessity of keeping hot blooded, adrenaline pumped, muscular men calm. Players don’t *deserve* an answer but sometimes it’s better to give them one.

But no amount of sporting aggression can rival what happens on the internet, and the most difficult dance of all must surely be internet moderation.

Which is why, when it’s done right, it’s truly a beautiful thing.

Someone even thanks him. Courtesy on the internet? Who ever heard of such a thing?

This example of internet moderation is just jaw-dropping; you never see a moderator lay down the law so clearly; so succinctly, without undue emotion or malice. Everything in life can be modeled by a playground dynamic, and this moderator is a perfect elementary teacher. “Please don’t turn this into a gun thread.” “RC, you know you are not allowed to use this blog as a platform for your crusade…”, “Carl, if you want to sock-puppet effectively, you are going to have to improve your reading comprehension.”

Brilliant.

What’s in a story?

January 2, 2011 under Uncategorized

Stories are serious business.  The power of a story’s message is that we can receive it without knowing; it slips right past our conscious guard. A story shapes our picture of the world, just through the simple act of being told (and heard).

A good story often reveals the difference between factuality and truth; a good fantasy gives us a stronger grounding in the real world.

Let me tell you a story; although I wouldn’t be surprised to find you already know this one.

It’s a story about… oh, let’s call her a friend of a friend. Anyway, the gist of the story is that she got married. It was a fairly independent decision; she didn’t closely consult with her parents.

But she’d gone off the deep end over him; he was caring and responsible and quite successful in life.

Now it’s true that you don’t really get to know someone in good times, you only find out who they are in the bad ones. In this case, my friend’s new husband eventually showed a side that she’d never seen (or one that she’d chosen to ignore, I don’t know) and she found herself trapped in an abusive relationship.

She was ashamed and confused and she didn’t feel that she could tell anyone about it. Things might have ended horrifically, except she had a sister with whom she was very close.

Her sister, sensing something wrong, managed to coax out the truth and eventually convinced my friend that something had to change. Finally, her family was able to step in and get her out of the house. They gave her support and a place to stay while the situation worked its way through the police and through the courts.

My friend is in a better situation now, although she carries with her a set of memories she can never leave behind.

Quite a sober story.

Now arguably, a story like this is important, and it should be told to keep it from happening again. It’s probably wise to pass on the lessons from this story to those who are about to embark on life’s adventures.

Unfortunately, effective teaching requires a receptive audience, and for lessons like these, if the audience gets all the way to teen-age it’s probably too late, because they’ve stopped listening by then. Uh-oh. That means it must be told to children.

How could I ever tell this story to a child? It’s awful. It’s terrifying. It’s real.

What happens when I shatter a child’s trust in real grown-ups? If I tell a story about real people (like the ones around them) how to be sure that the child won’t draw all the wrong conclusions – that they themselves are in danger and should be frightened?

Perhaps it could be fantastic, rather than realistic, to preserve the message and omit the threat.

Maybe the man my friend marries is marked in some way that distinguishes him from ordinary people – something that identifies him as a particular kind of man that we should be afraid of.

“There was a man who had fine houses, both in town and country, a deal of silver and gold plate, embroidered furniture, and coaches gilded all over with gold. But this man was so unlucky as to have a blue beard, which made him so frightfully ugly that all the women and girls ran away from him.

In short, everything succeeded so well that the youngest daughter began to think the master of the house not to have a beard so very blue, and that he was a mighty civil gentleman.

Can a child really understand emotional baggage, how people carry things with them? How do you tell them that there are areas of life that we consider unsafe to talk about? Bluebeard uses a metaphor; he tells his wife,

“But for this little one here, it is the key of the closet at the end of the great gallery on the ground floor. Open them all; go into all and every one of them, except that little closet, which I forbid you, and forbid it in such a manner that, if you happen to open it, there’s nothing but what you may expect from my just anger and resentment.”

How do you explain to a child why a man would abuse his wife? Maybe you don’t know, yourself. But it’s enough for them to know that it is a bad thing, a horrible, ghastly thing…

She then took the little key, and opened it, trembling, but could not at first see anything plainly, because the windows were shut. After some moments she began to perceive that the floor was all covered over with clotted blood, on which lay the bodies of several dead women, ranged against the walls. (These were all the wives whom Blue Beard had married and murdered, one after another.)…

“You do not know!” replied Blue Beard. “I very well know. You were resolved to go into the closet, were you not? Mighty well, madam; you shall go in, and take your place among the ladies you saw there.”

The reason for the story, of course, is to pass on a message. What should children know about how to act and who to turn to when threatened?

When she was alone she called out to her sister, and said to her:

“Sister Anne” (for that was her name), “go up, I beg you, upon the top of the tower, and look if my brothers are not coming over; they promised me that they would come to-day, and if you see them, give them a sign to make haste.”

It’s good to know of course, that a family is a support network in time of crisis.

The gate was opened, and presently entered two horsemen, who, drawing their swords, ran directly to Blue Beard. He knew them to be his wife’s brothers, one a dragoon, the other a musketeer, so that he ran away immediately to save himself; but the two brothers pursued so close that they overtook him before he could get to the steps of the porch, when they ran their swords through his body and left him dead.

And if you want to preserve a child’s peace of mind, you’d better leave them with some assurance that the world is not hideously broken and that things will be all right. Yes, this means a “happy ending”.

Blue Beard had no heirs, and so his wife became mistress of all his estate. She made use of one part of it to marry her sister Anne to a young gentleman who had loved her a long while; another part to buy captains commissions for her brothers, and the rest to marry herself to a very worthy gentleman, who made her forget the ill time she had passed with Blue Beard.

I don’t know why I felt the need to dissect this story and ground it in reality. Once I do it suddenly becomes vile and it probably falls afoul of Philippians 4:8 (Whatsoever is true). Still, here it is.

WOTD – laic

December 23, 2010 under Uncategorized

Today I finished a crossword puzzle and this was the Frankenword, sewn together from unwanted bits of other entries.

Is it even a real word?

Apparently.

laic – pertaining to the laity; secular

This is why I love the English language – if it looks like you can pronounce it, it’s probably a “real word” according to some pedant, somewhere.

Think melodic, rhapsodic, periodic for similar construction. Never heard of the word? Positively barbaric. The latin suffix is ‘-ic’, meaning “pertaining to”.

So if you want to put on clerical airs, this word is a must have.

For all those who read this entry, and thought, “Boy, this guy is really smart and sophisticated!” you should know that I just looked up all this junk on Google. Oh, and I cheated on the crossword.

Peace be with you.

Don’t reuse passwords

December 13, 2010 under Uncategorized

It’s just not worth the risk.

When people reuse passwords, this happens.

Remember – the web is a community, and *your* security hole is not *your* security hole – it’s everyone’s! 1.3M people use the same password across sites… and everyone gets spammed.

comments: 0 »

Contradiction and confusion

November 6, 2010 under Uncategorized

Here is a beautiful story – an old Father, mentoring his young daughter.

If there is anything that he has learned, he wants to pass it on, because he wants the best for her. He’s seen a little bit of the nature of the world. And so he writes her a letter.

However, I confess:  when I read the advice he gave her, I suffered a terrible case of Internet Rage. Some of the advice was well founded, but some of it…

“Do not ever work. Do not try hard. Do not read. Do not take advice.”

There is a tension here, a balance, between the creativity of youth and the experience of age. Tradition and established wisdom can carry with it a deadness, a stifling. But unguided creativity can plunge into narcissism, chaos, confusion… and ultimately, despair.

I left a lengthy response on the thread, which in retrospect, was perhaps not the wisest thing. There’s probably some cross-cultural nuance lost in translation here, as the man in question is Bangladeshi, and quite a world away from my own background.

Still, it bothered me.

Wikileaks and real risk

October 23, 2010 under Uncategorized

The big story in the news right now is the leaking of sensitive US Military documents.

The US Ministry of Defense says the leak puts US soldiers at risk. So says Hillary Clinton.

At risk of what? Public scorn? Budget cuts?

For some reason this response makes me angry – it’s just so… weak. No, that’s not it. I don’t like it because it’s trying to manipulate people by pushing their emotional buttons. To my mind, it’s a blatant lie that is being sold on its emotional and patriotic value; it is encouraging people to put blind loyalty before truth.

What is the real risk of the documents?

Perhaps the biggest risk is that the enemy will take the time away from launching operations to sit home and read through 400,000 documents (in a foreign language) that talk about things that have already happened. Truth be told, I doubt they have the bandwidth (people, time, communications infrastructure).

Perhaps what America has most to fear is a competent enemy commander who tells his men, “Stop wasting your time reading useless rubbish on the internet and go out and fight.”

First you have to read the documents. Then you have to sort out the little bits that are exploitable. Then you have to design exploits. Then you have implement them. Maybe we should be heralding the documents as a valuable distraction that is destined to save the lives of American troops.

What could the documented evidence of the US military killing civilians provide that the testimony of their families has not already? What are the tactics revealed that the US military’s opponents haven’t already learned experientially?

comments: 1 » tags: , , , ,

Scientific Dinosaurs

October 11, 2010 under Uncategorized

The $1,000,000 Dinosaur

Apparently, people pay a lot of money for dinosaur bones. At least, they do at dinosaur bone auctions. I wonder why.

Granted, near-complete allosaurus skeletons don’t exactly grow on trees – how big a tree would that take? – but ‘rare’ doesn’t always mean ‘valuable’.  I can think of a lot of rare things that don’t bring million dollar pricetags. Sometimes things are rare for a reason ;-) .

No, dead dino fragments are expensive for another reason as well. They’re scientific.

The article poses the question,

“But is it acceptable for someone to hoard scientific objects in their lounge?”

And immediately I thought, “What makes an object scientific or not?”

It seems to me that if you subscribe to a naturalistic perspective, all objects should be equally scientific. They’re all made up of the same kind of particles and can all be readily subjected to hypothesis and observation. They’re all subject to the same deterministic cause and effect and really there’s no basis for one being inherently more existential than another.

But I’m playing faux-ignorant here, just to make a point. I can guess at what makes one thing “Scientific” and another not “Scientific”. It means that we value one thing more than another.

Ultimately, whenever someone says “Science” they really mean “Science (that I care about).” This is why the bone your dog buried in the neighbor’s azaleas is not scientific. No-one cares about it. It has been subjected to a value judgment and it has failed. It’s a non-scientific bone.

Collectively, “Science” as used in society means “Science (that we care about)”. And part of what we care about is Scientific Dinosaurs.

The question, of course, is, “Why?”

The $1,000,000 Question

Why do we care about dinosaur bones? Why do they get to be “Scientific” while Rover’s bone gets relegated to the status of feud with the neighbors that leads to an exasperated municipal police officer who can’t believe that someone would call him at 3:00am over such a simple incident?

Well, if we poke around at the question of, “Why do we care about dinosaurs?” we quickly find that Rover’s bone isn’t the only dirty secret in this story.

There’s another, and it is that we live in a culture where Science *is* religion.

When faced with questions of meaning and purpose, this culture has faith that, if we study the mechanics of how things work, we will find the answers.

We trust Science. We believe in it. We have a religious belief in it. We really think that if we observe our environment in an organized and careful fashion, we can answer the tough questions.

It’s our religion. No kidding. Don’t believe me? Let’s go back to the dinosaurs.

Prof Kevin Padian, a palaeontologist and curator from the University of California in Berkeley, says the “problem is that it robs us of our patrimony”.

“Not every specimen is priceless in scientific or educational terms, but who should make this decision – auctioneers?”

Fascinating! When asked why the bones are precious, he invokes a word that means, “My father left it to me.”

My grandfather had a beautiful bamboo slide rule that my father now owns. Patrimony. This is why it is precious. Not because of the thing – because of the father.

“What my father has left to me.”  That’s a pretty interesting word to use for for something you find buried out in a desert somewhere.

I have to ask – Who is the father that gives dinosaur bones? It should be obvious that Prof Kevin Padian is not talking about a human father. But whatever father left it has made it precious. So who is this mysterious, metaphysical father?

I find it really hard to come up with an answer to this question that doesn’t make the father a religious one.

comments: 7 » tags: , , , ,

Hiatus?

October 8, 2010 under Uncategorized

I’m kicking around the idea of staying off the internet for a month.

I’d probably still keep e-mail but I’d cut out all blogs and surfing. My job requires me to use Google quite a bit so it wouldn’t be absolute deprivation.

I’m not committed to it yet; just kicking the idea about.

I guess the reason I’d like to do it is that I’m curious about what I’d really miss if I didn’t surf or blog.

comments: 9 » tags: , , ,