|
 |
| |
|
I've figured out my latest excuse for extreme lack of thesis work. I'm paralyzed from the wrists-down. Get it? Insteada waist down, it's wrists, as in I-can't-type-so-quit-asking-me-"how's the thesis coming?"
I know.
I should be actually working on the damn thing instead of coming up with excuses of why I'm not. Life's just a bit busier than normal right now, that's all. (in good ways)
Speaking of which, I'm exhausted. I'm off to experience my last sleep as a 26 year old.
ttfn.
|
|
|
|
|
"Regarding the Pain of Others"
Susan Sontag
Compassion is an unstable emotion. It needs to be translated into action, or it withers. The question is what to do with the feelings that have been aroused, the knowledge that has been communicated. People don't become inured to what they are shown...because of the quantity of images dumped on them. It is passivity that dulls feeling.
|
|
|
|
|
A couple months ago I wrote about precipices, and how I felt like I was on the verge of one. I was just thinking about that post, and how it's an interesting experience -- feeling like you're on the verge of something. The dictionary defines the word verge as "the extreme edge or margin; a border."
I'm realizing now how much of my life has either been on the verge of something or crossing a border of some sort (be it literal or not).
Whether the verge occurs while I'm staring at a blank computer screen, wondering how to tackle this thesis monster, waiting on the verge of an idea .... or waiting on a verge for my life to begin in a new direction, it's a scary, exhilariating, at times uncomfortable, and thrilling place to be. (and how's that for a list of contrasting adjectives?)
It's interesting to be looking over various cliffs of life, on the verge, knowing that your next move means a literal change in altitude.
Life on the edge. Yeah, it's cliché, but there's truth to it.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm here to reclaim the F word. No, not THAT word -- but rather, feminism. I'm really sick of seeing those glazed over, "oh no, not one of those fema-nazis" looks on peoples' faces when I mention anything remotely linked to feminism. I'm also wary of people in academia disdaining anything labeled feminist as "ideological fatuous crap."
I'm just about noticing inequalities and rectifying them whenever possible. I guess that makes me more of an egalitarian than a feminist. I just have this bizarre notion that equal pay for equal work should apply, regardless of whatever sexual equipment you were granted at birth. Likewise, I have a revolutionary idea that in relationships -- a woman should be standing beside her man, and not behind. "Head of the household" isn't granted by virtue of your sex, it's something that's dynamic and flexible. It's not about roles, it's about relationship.
I'm not asking for special rights, just equal ones. I'm not out to belittle men, or change from a patriarchy to a matriarchy (though both are tempting at times).
Anyway, maybe I'm a bit more riled than normal due to my choice in reading materials. I'm finishing up the latest Ms. Magazine, and one particular article -- "The Unreal World: Why Women on 'reality TV' have to be hot, desperate, and dumb" by Jennifer L. Pozner.
The last two paragraphs sum it up well:
Apologists claim reality TV isn't sexist because no one forces these women to appear on these shows. But the impact on the shows' participants is almost beside the point: The real concern is the millions of viewers, scores of whom are young girls, who take in these misogynistic spectacles uncritically, learning that only the most stereotypically beautiful, least independent women with the lowest carb-diets will be rewarded with love, financial security, and the ultimate prize of male validation.
Perhaps saddest of all, real love is almost wholly absent from these artificial mating dances. What little girl dreams of being whisked away by a callous, egotistical dimwit who sticks his tongue down 15 other women's throats before he reluctantly settles for her? After all the happily-ever-after buildup, every bachelor has dumped his "chosen girl" shortly after their series wrapped production. That's the thing about fairy tales ... they're not real. In the end, these programs represent a trivial and depressing depiction of the concept of love itself. The equation Fat Wallet + Skinny Chick = Love robs us all of our humanity, and erases the possibility of true emotional connection.
It's the subtle things we gotta look out for, in my opinion. Things like Top 40 songs with lyrics that belittle women (And I love your lack of self respect / While you're passed out on the deck / I love my hands around your neck), TV shows that emphasize your physical inadequacies and subject women to painful (and unnecessary?) surgeries, or simply magazine covers that display women like pieces of meat, rather than human beings.
Just accepting these things as a "part of culture" is unacceptable -- and I'll be the one pitching a fit in the background. You won't be able to tune me out.
|
|
|
|
|
It's been ages since I've been to the gym. Ages. It's actually quite tragic, considering my membership fees come out of my account -- whether I'm there or not. No, working out wasn't one of my resolutions, though by judging the amount of people in my classes tonight -- most of Saskatoon seems to have resolved to sweat.
I was pleased to discover that my lack of gym attendance doesn't necessarily mean I'm outta shape. I kept up with the best of 'em, and stayed on for an extra class. I'm crediting it to my walking around EVERYwhere lately -- despite the subzero temperatures. I live in an area that's in the middle of almost everything I need access to, so rather than subjecting my car to these temps, I just walk around wearing so many layers I bounce whenever I slip.
Ah well. I'm realizing that this was a really boring entry -- right up there with "I brushed my teeth today" type of posts. To make up for it, here's a gem from Jeff:
Apologies for lack of postings lately. I'm just waiting for a political/personal crisis or a breathing break in my (pleasantly) evolving life. Until then, stay tuned.
|
|
|
|
|
Busy, busy.
Teaching tomorrow. Life happening all around me. Not much new to post.
What's going on with you?
|
|
|
|
|
The clumbsiness gene
... has yet again resurfaced in me. When I was 12 or so, I went through a period of time where I was continually falling or breaking fragile items. The highlights of that period had to be when I walked into the glass door of our entertainment center (shattering it into thousands of pieces) or when I broke 4 of the 5 lightbulb holders of our living room chandelier.
Needless to say, I was hoping those days were far behind me. Maybe they're not so far after all.
In the last week I have fallen (twice), bumped into people, ran into stable objects, nearly broke a glass chess set (a couple of separate times), and have managed to drop the same item in my hands (usually my keys) repeatedly. One of those falls was down the back steps of our patio -- inspiring half of my bum to be a rather lovely purple and black color. The other fall was on the street when carrying a load of groceries and bagels (the only casualty in that case was the cantelope).
I've never been one to exhibit an inordinate amount of physical grace, but this is getting ridiculous. Luckily with the warm temperatures of today, I'm hoping that it'll be fall/bump free. Then again, I wouldn't put it past me to wipe out in front of a rather large group of people. At least whenever I do fall, I bounce rather than thud. That counts for something, no? Falling with style.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan. 24 worst day of year, says professor
LONDON - Jan. 24 is the worst day of the year, with bad weather, debt, fading Christmas memories, failed resolutions and a lack of motivation combining to depress people. This is the contention of Cliff Arnalls, a part-time university tutor in Wales. The Cardiff university instructor has come up with a formula to measure the winter-time blues, the BBC reported.
According to Dr. Arnalls' equation, 1/8W+(D-d) 3/8xTQ MxNA, misery peaks next Monday, Jan. 24, a month after Christmas.
JANUARY BLUES DAY FORMULA
1/8W+(D-d) 3/8xTQ MxNA. Where: W: Weather D: Debt d: Money due in January pay T: Time since Christmas Q: Time since failed quit attempt M: General motivational levels NA: The need to take action
Arnalls calculated the effects of cold, wet – in the case of Britain – and dark January weather after the cosiness of Christmas coupled with extra spending in the sales.
Any energy from the holidays had worn off by the third week of January, he said. By Monday, most people will have fallen off the wagon or abandoned the nicotine patches as they fail to keep New Year's resolutions.
That compounded a sense of failure and knocked confidence needed to get through January.
The fact that the most depressing day fell on a Monday was not planned but a coincidence, Arnalls said.
Well, despite having to be at school at an ungodly hour this morning, I don't think today will shape up to be a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day. It actually started off quite nice -- plus it's going to be ABOVE zero today. +5!!
Alas, I'm now back to thesis work, so it could all end very badly -- who knows? Being an optimist in graduate school is a rarity seldom accomplished.
|
|
|
|
|
A news story that you may not hear about: US Scraps "Coalition of the Willing" List.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House has scrapped its list of Iraq allies known as the 45-member "coalition of the willing," which Washington used to back its argument that the 2003 invasion was a multilateral action, an official said on Friday.
The senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the White House replaced the coalition list with a smaller roster of 28 countries with troops in Iraq sometime after the June transfer of power to an interim Iraqi government.
The official could not say when or why the administration did away with the list of the coalition of the willing.
I can think of some reasons why they'd have to scrap the list -- and even more reasons why they don't want the American public to know it.
|
|
|
|
|
Tonight I inadvertently stumbled upon an amazing film.
The movie in question was an HBO film -- Wit, starring Emma Thompson as the lead character. The movie is about an English Lit professor who is diagnosed with an "insidious" case of ovarian cancer.
While the watching conditions weren't exactly ideal (especially for a film purist/snob as myself), I found myself completely enraptured by the film. It was sealed for me from the beginning, in one scene concerning the lead character and a professor of hers, discussing the effects of punctuation in one of John Donne's Holy Sonnets.
I'm still brooding over the lessons of life, regret, academia, passions, mortality, and independence turning into dependence -- issues that are gracefully addressed as the main character progresses into her illness.
I need to watch it again. I need to read the play (Pulitzer prize winning!) by Margaret Edson. In fact, I could see myself going to McNally this weekend and picking it up.
By the way, there's a new literary victim on my list: Famous Last Words by Timothy Findlay. Anyone read?
|
|
|
|
|
I've just finished my local television debut. Look for me on February 17th, at 6pm on CTV ("yours truly, Channel 8!").
Jennifer Jellicoe is just a doll and hopefully I won't look as goofy on camera as I felt while talking to her.
|
|
|
|
|
"A time comes when silence is betrayal. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought, within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world." - Martin Luther King Jr.
Happy Inauguration, George. The world is watching, and we'll be holding you accountable for these next four years (and history has a longer memory than 52% of the American public).
|
|
|
|
|
Subversive Cartoons .... dun, dun, DUN!
On the heels of electoral victories barring same-sex marriage, some influential conservative Christian groups are turning their attention to a new target: the cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants. "Does anybody here know SpongeBob?" Dr. James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, asked the guests Tuesday night at a black-tie dinner for members of Congress and political allies to celebrate the election results. SpongeBob needed no introduction. In addition to his popularity among children, who watch his cartoon show, he has become a well-known camp figure among adult gay men, perhaps because he holds hands with his animated sidekick Patrick and likes to watch the imaginary television show "The Adventures of Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy." Now, Dr. Dobson said, SpongeBob's creators had enlisted him in a "pro-homosexual video," in which he appeared alongside children's television colleagues like Barney and Jimmy Neutron, among many others. The makers of the video, he said, planned to mail it to thousands of elementary schools to promote a "tolerance pledge" that includes tolerance for differences of "sexual identity." [...] "We see the video as an insidious means by which the organization is manipulating and potentially brainwashing kids," he said. "It is a classic bait and switch."
(via Kos)
James Dobson, you are officially my hero. Way to go after those causes that really are important for the preservation of the family.
[/sarcasm]
EDIT: Ooooh, there's more.
Could James Dobson be heading back to the fringe? His organization, Focus on the Family and another Christian conservative group, the American Family Association, are targeting the cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants, as well as Barney the Dinosaur, Arthur, Dora the Explorer, JoJo, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Big Bird and Bob the Builder as part of an "insidious" gay plot to manipulate and potentially brainwash kids into thinking gayness is okay. Dobson's charge comes after the character's creators lent him to a multi-cartoon video promoting a "tolerance pledge" created by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The pledge includes tolerance for different sexual identities, but is not included on the video, and can only be found on the SPLC website. The video's creators maintain that the project was intended to foster multiculturalism after 9/11 but Dobson is not convinced, saying, "'It is a classic bait and switch.'" That's from The Revealer.
In an age where there's rampant warmongering over oil, poverty and unemployment in our streets, and the expedited destruction of our environment -- issues like these seem to be so petty, and only further negative reputations of people who are spiritually minded. It's sickening.
|
|
|
|
|
It has been a while since a good quiz or two, which means I'm not living up to my reputation.
| You Are 29 Years Old |
20-29: You are a twentysomething at heart. You feel excited about what's to come... love, work, and new experiences.
|
What does it mean if you act older, but look years younger? (as in you-still-get-carded-at-R-rated-movies younger?)
|
|
|
|
|
Just in time for me to finish up Elmer, there's a new prospect on my must-read list: God's Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It. It's by Jim Wallis, the editor of Sojourners magazine, something I must subscribe to one day. I like how it combines social justice issues with spirituality.
Anyway, Wallis was on Daily Show last night -- providing a bright spot on a typically bleak post-election season of my favorite show. Don't get me wrong, I still adore Jon Stewart, but there's just been something lacking in the show lately.
Tomorrow is marks the sad day of another four years of the Bush administration. I think I have just the shirt to wear, to commemorate the occasion:
It says "American Psycho," in case you can't tell. The good news is that he can't run again (as of yet, but part of his agenda is amending the Constitution -- so even that good news is conditional). The bad news is, well, four more years. Ugh.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm only about 30 pages or so away from finishing Elmer Gantry, and I've really enjoyed my reading experience of it so far. This is my non-scholastic book du jour, as well as my companion during bathtimes. There are few things that surpass a good book and a bubble bath (though I can think of a few).
Anyway, last night I was reading and came across a passage that was so good it required me to mark it in my book and consequently read it aloud to someone. Of course, I'm going to blog it.
Within Elmer Gantry, the author (Sinclair Lewis) pits two characters against each other, in terms of the ways they view and practice faith. The protagonist (and namesake) is a boorish ass. Literally. If there were television evangelists during the time of the writing, he'd be up there with the Paul Crouches and Benny Hinns of the day. His faith is flagrant on the outside, superficial within. He's motivated by money, fame, and personal glory.
His counterpart (a character by the name of Frank Shallard) is a man torn between his intellect and his faith. He desperately wants to believe in the God of his faith, but he knows he needs to reconcile God with the other issues that are important to him (social justice, various intellectual queries, etc). He's genuine in his quest, but disdained by Gantry and other "men of faith" because of the difficult questions he asks.
You can guess which character I like more.
The quote I am listing below is some of Frank's dialogue with a fellow minister. The other minister is trying to convince Frank that he should stay in the church, and attempt to liberalize it from within. It's an interesting conversation, especially in light of the discussion below. It's a bit on the long-ish side, but it was so good I couldn't cut any of it out.
Just what were the personality and the teachings of Jesus? I'll admit it's the heart of the controversy over the Christian religion: -- aside from the fact that, of course, most people believe in a church because they were born to it. But the essential query is: Did Jesus -- if the Biblical accounts of him are even half accurate -- have a particularly noble personality, and were his teachings particularly original and profound?
You know it's almost impossible to get people to read the Bible honestly. They've been so brought up to take the church interpretation of every word that they read into it whatever they've been taught to find there. It's been so with me, up to the last couple of years. But now I'm becoming a quarter free, and I'm appalled to see that I don't find Jesus an especially admirable character!
He is picturesque. He tells splendid stories. He's a good fellow, fond of low company -- in fact the idea of Jesus, whom the bishops of his day cursed as a rounder and wine-bibber, being chosen as the god of the Prohibitionists is one of the funniest twists in history. But he's vain, he praises himself outrageously, he's fond of astonishing people by little magical tricks which we've been taught to revere as 'miracles.' He is furious as a child in a tantrum when people don't recognize him as a great leader. He loses his temper. He blasts the poor barren fig-tree when it doesn't feed him.
What minds people have! They hear preachers proving by the Bible the exact opposites, that the Roman Catholic Church is divinely ordained and that it is against all divine ordinances, and it never occurs to them that far from the Christian religion -- or any other religion -- being a blessing to humanity, it's produced such confusion in all thinking, such secondhand viewing of actualities, that only now are we beginning to ask what and why we are, and what we can do with life!
Just what are the teachings of Christ? Did he come to bring peace or more war? He says both. Did he approve earthly monarchies or rebel against them? He says both. Did he ever -- think of it, God himself, taking on human form to help the earth -- did he ever suggest sanitation, which would have saved millions from plagues? And you can't say his failure there was because he was too lofty to consider mere sickness. On the contrary, he was awfully interested in it, always healing some one -- providing they flattered his vanity enough!
What did he teach? One place in the Sermon on the Mount he advises -- let me get my Bible -- here it is: "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven," and then five minutes later he's saying, 'Take heed that ye do not cast your alms before men, to be seen of them, otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.' That's an absolute contradiction, in the one document which is the charter of the whole Christian Church.
Oh, I know you can reconcile them, Phil. That's the whole aim of the ministerial training: to teach us to reconcile contradictions by saying that one of them doesn't mean what it means -- and it's always a good stunt to throw in 'You'd understand it if you'd only read it in the original Greek!'
There's some food for thought on a Wednesday. I've got more to say on some of the issues raised in the passage, but I'll wait to see what y'all think of it first.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a feeling that many drivers in Saskatoon are going to be exclaiming "D'oh!" and other words of the four-lettered variety this morning.
I awoke to find my car (and surrounding world) covered in a thick glaze -- and not of the sugared donut variety, but one of a quarter to a half inch of ICE. Apparently there was frozen freezing rain last night, and throughout the city you can hear people hacking away at their windows -- in addition to murmuring profanities at winter.
I had heard yesterday that it was supposed to be ABOVE zero today -- but looking at the weather report, apparently I misheard -- or you just can't forecast weather in Sasakatchewan. I must be an optimist, considering I only wore a bunny-hug to school this morning.
Then again, I'll be stuck inside all day (like any good grad student). In when it's dark, out when it's dark. I feel like I'm working in an academic mine.
And with that, dear reader, I'm off to read some Rhetorical Theory (in particular, John Locke). My "tabula rasa" is exactly that.
UPDATE: It took over 20 minutes to scrape all the ice off my car. Ugh. Windows around here look like those frosted shower doors -- kinda cool looking, but overall -- a pain in the ass to rectify.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not a morning person -- anyone who knows me well can attest to that fact. That said, every Monday and Wednesday morning I have a class from 8-9:30AM, where we talk about Rhetoric and Ethical Criticism. This is one topic that fascinates me, and actually makes it worthwhile to be on-campus while it's still dark as night outside.
Much of my thesis deals with the topic of ethical choice. I love that my field of study incorporates so much ethics into its study and evaluations of artifacts. So -- while I'm here at school and have a while before my next class starts, I thought I'd muse here about what I'm (gradually) learning.
Ethics is a tricky subject. As soon as I assertively state that Revolve is not ethical, and then make assertions about the motivations of their editors, people start to raise their eyebrows at me like I'm doing a dangerous thing. Yet I believe that as soon as you start influencing someone else's behavior, choices, or opinions -- ethics are at play, and your motivations need to be examined. That's not to say that I'm forever cynically examining people for malicious intents -- but I am looking to see what is at play in the discourse or dialogue.
This week we read an article by Marshall Gregory entitled: Ethical Criticism: What it is and Why it Matters." If you have a spare 20 minutes or so, you should read what he has to say -- not only is he articulate and eloquent in his prose, but he's got some interesting things to say about the connection between ethics, storytelling, and entertainment in the formation of the self.
There are a couple of quotes within the article that really stand out to me:
"Telling and consuming stories is a fundamental and universal human activity [...] Most of us cannot evade the deep intuition that identifying with characters in stories can exert a powerful influence on the quality and content of our own lives. It is this perspective -- stories as an influence on ethos, or who we become -- that makes ethical criticism necessary."
"A colleague of mine who spends a lot of class time pointing out to her students how many representations of women in literature show the evils of patriarchy is the same person who watches Pretty Woman over and over 'just for entertainment.' An ethical critic, however, will want to interrogate closely the potential effects of entertainment, when it is clear when highly-educated and highly-intelligent people think they don't need to employ their critical powers because they are 'merely being entertained,' then it follows that those are the very moments when their sympathies, feelings, and moral judgements are most vulnerable to influence. Ethical criticism will attempt to help readers understand that there is no such thing as 'merely entertained,' that even the lowest possible level of engagement, the intellectual and affective exertions that are required just to understand the content, shape, and direction of a story in fact involve a complicitous agreement to let the story have its own way with their beliefs and feelings -- at least for the time being."
"I contend, however, that ethical critics tend to make explicit what nearly everyone else does either implicitly or in non-ethical terms, and that it is only reprehensible when it is done badly, that is, when it is done unintelligently or dishonestly or manipulatively [...] Ethical critics want to bring the discussion of ethical presuppositions and potenial ethical effects out into the open where the claims about them can be criticized, contested, and improved."
Which brings me back to my thesis topic (everything in my life from now until I'm finished will bring me back to this topic, methinks). What the editors SAY they are doing with Revolve is entirely different than the text they've produced. They say that they've simply made the Bible more "relevant" for girls -- when really they've appropriated another medium in order to sell their own consumeristic vision of how girls should behave in society today ... not exactly taking the biblical principles they're supposedly promoting.
And not only that, but because of the innoculous medium they've chosen, the editors/writers behind Revolve are able to subtlety insert their agendas -- mainly because the girls are familiar with the magazine medium -- and by combining this familiarity with the authority automatically attached to the Bible, the audience won't think to question what's being said to them. It is this quality of the communication that makes it ethically questionable, in my opinion.
In our classes we have something that our prof has labeled the "Big Question." This question is simply, "Who is saying what to whom, and for what purpose? Who benefits?" It's this question that I hope to answer by the time I'm finally finished my examination of Revolve -- and I'll be using a good deal of ethical criticism in my deciphering.
|
|
|
|
|
Men are more likely than women to say they are satisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time. A recent Gallup Poll finds that 51% of men are satisfied, and 48% are dissatisfied. Among women, only about 4 in 10 are satisfied, while a majority, 56%, are dissatisfied with the current state of the nation. [Jan 3-5, 2005]
Link
|
|
|
|
|
Taking my lead from a fellow nerd, here are the first sentence or two from every month last year.
January: Oh to have this type of New Year's kiss...
February: Attention advertisers: As of today, I'm officially in a new age bracket, 26-34.
March: It's March already. I'm so behind in everything. EVERYTHING. (le sigh)
April: Of "dynamic purses," not-so-faggy Gap polos, and Crate & Barrel pepper mills...
May: Hah, I almost forgot. I wonder what Ayn Rand would think of The Corporation?
June: Maybe it's because I just heard a presentation on Ellison's Invisible Man, but lately I've been wondering what it would be like to be a nameless, invisible girl.
July: Oy, going non-stop again. Off to party at Jordon and Wendy's. He's even set up a web cam to catch all of the festivities.
August: I've had quite the full day today. It started by my attending a church service. I was doing quite fine up until the sermon part of the service -- and then my heretical/rebellious/non-conventional anntenae went up and sorta derailed me for the rest of the time there.
September: Guess who's covering the RNC for USA Today? Yeah, he's totally self-aggrandizing, but part of me really loves the fact he's covering the convention.
October: Yikes. It's October already.
November: Thanks to Marc's skillful tracing and cutting out abilities (along with Ang's photography skillz), please observe our 2004 festive jack-o'lantern. Oh and thanks to the Brothers Chaps as well!
December: Happy December already. I'm not quite as "ostrich" right now. Perspective is a fragrant lit Fir tree in your living room and a puppy on your lap as you type on your thesis.
It's interesting how encapsulating of my 2004 these sentences are. Then again, I could be finding all of this fascinating because I've had no sleep.
Besides, who can sleep when Mama Cass's biography is on TV?
|
|
|
|
|
The Church Why Bother? An interesting article from CT, with conclusions I don't necessarily support (no big surprise there).
Segments:
[the author quotes this bit about Bono, and later speaks out against these sentiments expressed by him:] In February 2003, Christianity Today featured Bono, lead singer for the rock group U2, and his campaign for the church to become more involved in the fight against AIDS. Bono emerged as a star example of the unchurched Christian. Having once been involved in a loosely structured Irish fellowship, Bono now seldom goes to church. He does pray. He likes to say grace at meals. He has a favorite Bible translation. But he doesn't want to be pinned down. "I just go where the life is, you know? Where I feel the Holy Spirit," Bono told Christianity Today's reporter, Cathleen Falsani. "If it's in the back of a Roman Catholic cathedral, in the quietness and the incense, which suggest the mystery of God, of God's presence, or in the bright lights of the revival tent, I just go where I find life. I don't see denomination. I generally think religion gets in the way of God."
I completely agree with the sunglassed-one. The author of the article doesn't, and continues:
We do not need to condemn those alienated from the institutional church, but to help them reconsider. By keeping away from church commitments, they miss out on life essential. "Life essential?"
He finishes his article by stating:
We offer perilous advice when we urge people to "find Christ" anywhere but in a local congregation. Can you imagine Paul arriving in a city, finding the local congregation not to his taste and simply staying away? For Paul, a Christian without his church is as unthinkable as a human being with no relatives. A person may quarrel with his kin, but he cannot leave them—they are his own flesh and blood. So it is with the church. And furthermore, they are Jesus' flesh and blood. People need people. God's people need God's people in order to know God. Life in Christ is a corporate affair. All God's promises were made to God's people—plural. All the New Testament epistles address Christians in churches. The Bible simply does not know of the existence of an individual, isolated Christian.
and
The church is the body of Christ, and it carries his wounds. To know Christ is to share in the fellowship of his sufferings—even if the suffering comes at the hands of the sinners who sit in the pews or preach from the pulpit.
How can we communicate this to unchurched Christians? The only way I know is to preach it. We need to tell them, even if it goes against the grain of our culture. We need to tell them, even if talking so frankly goes against our philosophy of outreach.
If people commit themselves to the church, they will undoubtedly suffer. The church will fail them and frustrate them, because it is a human institution. Yet it will also bless them, even as it fails. A living, breathing congregation is the only place to live in a healthy relationship to God. That is because it is the only place on earth where Jesus has chosen to dwell. How can you enjoy the benefits of Christ if you detach yourself from the living Christ?
This talk of "church" fascinates me. I'm one of those "walking wounded" that is mentioned in the article. There are wounds in my past experiences that took me so far away from God that I wasn't sure I'd ever come back to a place where we'd be on speaking terms again.
But I finally realized that my grievances weren't necessarily with him (or her) -- but more with their followers, these "holy" people in positions of leadership.
It took a while, but now I'm back into a context of church -- albeit a church that isn't (at least by any conventional standards). We're a group of friends who meet every week, eat supper together, and then talk and build relationships with each other, and with God. We're not out to position ourselves into a church building somewhere in town, not out to manipulate people into our vision, and we're not about false church-smiles and Sunday-school answers.
It's also not about a consumeristic, what's-in-it-for-me type of attitude. It's about meeting people where they are -- not imposing visions from the outside or trying to be something we're not. If anything, I think this is more of the vision of church Jesus had, rather than these McChurches popping up all over -- with their pre-processed sermons and trademarked golf teeshirts.
I think I resent the tone of this article. "Life essential" isn't something that is defined the same way for everyone. I wonder what he'd think of our group that meets every week -- just because we don't have a building, budget, or paid staff, do we count as a church? I don't think I should have to be a part of a frustrating, soul-sapping institution just because someone else labels it as "essential" to my well-being as a believer.
But that's just my two and a half (Canadian) cents.
|
|
|
|
|
I could complain about the weather, but it's so cliche nowadays. You know it's cold outside when the forecast calls for -25, and you're excited at the potential heatwave.
I was perusing last fall's Ms. Magazine and I came across this article: Fighting Words for a Secular America: Ashcroft and Friends VS. Washington and the Framers.
One thing strikes me whenever I go home (as in US-home) or whenever I watch US media shows -- this whole notion of America being a "Christian" nation, and our founding fathers as being these ideal Christian men. It's primarily used as a rationalization device by the current Administration to push/blur/destroy the boundaries of separation of Church and State.
Read the article -- here's some of its introduction:
Americans who honor the U.S. Constitution’s strict separation of church and state are now genuinely alarmed. Agnostics and atheists, as well as observant people of every faith, fear — sensibly — that the religious right is gaining historic political power, via an ultraconservative movement with highly placed friends. But many of us feel helpless. We haven’t read the Founding Documents since school (if then). We lack arguing tools, “verbal karate” evidence we can cite in defending a secular United States. For instance, such extremists claim — and, too often, we ourselves assume — that U.S. law has religious roots. Yet the Constitution contains no reference to a deity. The Declaration of Independence contains not one word on religion, basing its authority on the shocking idea that power is derived from ordinary people, which challenged European traditions of rule by divine right and/or heavenly authority. (Remember, George III was king of England and anointed head of its church.) The words “Nature’s God,” the “Creator” and “divine Providence ” do appear in the Declaration. But in its context — an era, and author, Thomas Jefferson, that celebrated science and the Enlightenment — these words are analogous to our contemporary phrase “life force.” Jerry Falwell notoriously blamed 9/11 on “pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays and lesbians … [and other groups] who have tried to secularize America.” He’s a bit late: In 1798, Alexander Hamilton accused Jefferson of a “conspiracy to establish atheism on the ruins of Christianity” in the new republic. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence William Boykin thunders, “We’re a Christian nation.” But the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli — initiated by George Washington and signed into law by John Adams — proclaims: “The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion.” Offices for “Faith-Based Initiatives” with nearly $20 billion in grants have been established (by executive order, circumventing Congress) in 10 federal agencies, as well as inside the White House. This fails “the Lemon Test,” violating a 1971 Supreme Court decision (Lemon v. Kurtzman): “first, a statute [or public policy] must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute [or policy] must not foster ‘excessive government entanglement with religion.’” I'm not one to censor anyone's right to practice his or her religion -- but when my government starts acting as an agent of God, that causes me to pause long enough to protest its megalomanical policies.
The rest of the article includes many quotes from the various founding fathers that would contradict any of those claims that they intended the United States of America to be solely a "Christian" nation.
I don't think it makes me any less a follower of God if I don't want him (or her) in my government's policies. In fact, it seems to me the more divinely-inspired the government, the more apt it is to go bombing or destroying another people group citing justified causes.
|
|
|
|
|
-49!
That's right -- we're officially colder than the moon, and skin freezes in 5 minutes if exposed to outside air. (both links courtesy of other freezing Saskatchewan bloggers)
All warm, humid, tropical thoughts welcome.
*how am I supposed to work on my thesis when it's so COLD outside? (rationalization excuse #544)
|
|
|
|
|
Just in time to celebrate the miserable failure's inaugration gala in a week in a half:
US Quietly Halts Quest for Iraqi WMD:
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States has stopped searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- one of its key reasons for invading the country -- and a report saying there are no such weapons to find there will likely stand, the White House confirmed.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that for the Iraq Survey Group, which was leading the search for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, "a lot of their mission is focused elsewhere now."
McClellan said a report authored by the survey group's head, Charles Duelfer, which is to be released to the US Congress in the coming weeks, will be similar to a September draft in which he said there were no such weapons. "(Duelfer) is continuing to wrap things up at this point. ... My understanding is that it is not going to fundamentally alter the findings of his earlier report," McClellan said.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq ended before Christmas.
Somehow saying that my president "has some 'splaining" to do seems to be trite -- especially in light of the losses both sides have experienced in this quagmire of a diplomatic mess.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm cold -- it's a down to my bones type of cold. I figure that I'll not warm up until ... oh, say, April or so.
In other news, the Broadway Theatre is finally showing some decent artsy-type films. In the next couple of weeks they'll be playing the reincarnation flick Birth (with Nicole Kidman) and the French film A Very Long Engagement (with Audrey Tautou, from Amelie). It's been ages since I've sat through a film in an actual theatre, and even longer since I've been in the local arthouse theatre. Movies are one way to escape the bitter cold outside.
Another great way of escape is to find any (and all) errands that are pressing. I was quite productive today, despite the -40something windchills.
|
|
|
|
|
How to be Righteous
Lori McKenna
Don't judge me
I will judge myself
I will lie in my bed at night wide awake or asleep
I will feel pain
When I know I have given it
Everything I put out to the world I know comes back to me
But when angels hear the devils' call
And my vision's unclear I got no sense at all
I'm just hoping I will obey my conscience
I want to learn how to be righteous
I saw it on a TV show
I bought the book you know
Paid attention when I thought the preacher was talking to me
But it's not easy, no
To get over, let it go
All these feelings that are burning and building up inside of me
But when angels hear the devils' call
And my vision's unclear I got no sense at all
I'm just hoping I will obey my conscience
I want to learn how to be righteous
Well I'll look at all I have and I will claim it
Won't let anybody else ever tell me who I should be
I'll look in the mirror and gaze in my children's eyes
And I will not give a damn what anybody else thinks of me
And when questions come, I will answer right
Be true to myself, need be put up a fight
Will not heed to greed, I will obey my conscience
I want to learn, I need to learn how to be righteous
So when angels hear the devils' call
And my vision's unclear I got no sense at all
I'm just hoping I will obey my conscience
I want to learn, I need to learn how to be righteous
I've posted this song before, but it's such a good (and applicable) song, here it is again.
|
|
|
|
|
You know the song that mentions "snowflakes that stay on my nose and eyelashes" -- as one of my "favorite" things? Well, I can safely say that icicles on my eyelashes (as result of walking outside in -40ish temperatures) are NOT one of my favorite things. Thought I have to admit, it is a bit fascinating to come inside and notice how frosty I've become. And it's one of those joys you can only experience having a winter in Saskatchewan. (except for maybe the Arctic)
So, life has been a bit slow here in the blogging world. I'm resisting going into too much details, because there are things even I don't digress in this cyber-domain of mine. But they're good things my life, so no worries.
As far as my graduate school experience goes -- wow. I'm officially ready to be finished. Forget PhD adventures, I'm more than eager to have my MA and then a job out in the "real" world. Granted, in order to have these adventures in the real world, I need to actually start write the damn thing.
I think I may have pinpointed my problem, in terms of writing it. I got hung up on my Literature Review chapter. I kept reading more and more articles, and not incorporating them into my work. Maybe it's my newfound insecurities as a scholar, but I was just rehashing what these authors had to say rather than making their words support my own work. Bad idea all around.
So, I'm temporarily setting aside that quagmire of a chapter and I'm actually picking up Revolve again -- in order to become acquainted with it (again), and with what I actually want to say about it in my thesis. I won't even say how long it's been since I've read/studied/looked at my artifact.
This is hard. I'd much rather blog, wash dishes, do laundry, watch a movie, clip my puppy's nails, shovel snow, or any number of things -- rather than sitting down and working on this huge project.
Here's a PhD comic that sort of encapsulates my graduate school experience. It shows a student brushing his teeth, all excited about his ideas, degree, academic future -- then he gets to school, is presented with the reality of it all, and the lightbulb above his head is smashed as his degree flies away. I'm completely empathetic with that experience.
Sometimes I think the more education I receive, the more I feel insignificant and ill-prepared and discouraged I feel in an academic environment. When I was in undergrad, I was taking 4 or 5 classes at a time, with papers and assignments out the wahzoo -- and somehow I got the work done, and managed to work part-time jobs. Nowadays, I'm auditing (as in, not officially enrolled in) 2 classes -- and I barely get the readings for class done. I'm not even accountible for the work, and I feel like I'm still grasping for air as I'm listening to the lectures in class.
But that's enough navel-gazing for one post. Enjoy your blizzard experience tomorrow.
|
| | | | |