Intellectuelle

Is life really all about style? I used to think so. Being somewhat of an aesthete, I was rather attuned to it. But being stylish takes a lot of work, not to mention self-consciousness (and time, and attention, and usually money). Having style takes work too, but the focus is different -- there's a difference between having style, or having a style, and being stylish. (Self-evident, but not necessarily attended to.)

Being stylish requires both self-focus and image-focus; i.e, being concerned with how you appear to others. Having style is more about being who you are and developing the gifts you've been given. (The two could go hand-in-hand, and do, but certainly not in everything.)

But stylishness, or lack thereof, seems to be quite the barometer, especially among the younger set, of worth (and I'm not just talking about fashion sense, or clothing). It may sound crass to say so, but think about it. If stylishness is worth spending time, and conversation, and magazines, and television shows, and gossip, and whatever else on, then obviously it carries a lot of currency when it comes to assessing people and their value, or the value of their lives: it's used as a gauge to decide who's up-to-speed, forward-looking, obedient to the right people's rules, successful, fun, creative, fantasy-fulfilling, etc.

But (here come the scissors, chop-chop, look out): does stylishness make for truly worthwhile relationships? Does it have staying power? Does it save marriages? Does it feed hungry people? Does it prevent abuse? Does it help victims of human trafficking? Does it rebuild communities destroyed by natural disaster? Does it raise healthy, smart, responsible children? Does it mean squat when you're in the hospital giving birth, or having surgery, or recovering from a serious illness? Does it get your housework done? Does it help you learn world history, or philosophy, or theology? Does it help you make good political choices? Does it help you understand the breadth of art or music?

Or is it merely used as a gauge to decide who's good enough for me, me, me (or you, you, you)? As if who's good enough for me (or you) is the only thing that matters?

Stylishness is merely a means to a certain end. And what end? Is the end really worth it?

Posted by Bonnie at 9:36 AM | Permalink | Culture Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Stumble It!

we not only sin because we are ignorant but we are also ignorant because we sin

As this dynamic is relevant to all areas of life, it's relevant to the discussion of gender issues. Those who would like to "improve upon" God's design of male and female, as well as those who would like to define (or over-define) both that design and its purpose, are subject to this temptation. But how might we properly construe our place in the universe? By trying to decide what our proper place is everywhere else? Or by finding our proper place at the feet of the risen Christ first? Methinks the latter. (This doesn't oversimplify the matter; who would argue that that's not our proper place in the universe?)

We either trust Christ, or we don't. Or we sorta do and sorta don't. But if we're truly trusting Him, then it shouldn't be too complicated to work out just who we are, and who we are to be, both male and female. But if we are fearful, prideful, arrogant, envious, greedy, lust-filled, or otherwise walking "in the flesh," then the matter may seem far more complicated.

But back to the book, and the lesson from p. 18: may it be one well learned. May we all have the care and courage to assign divinity its proper place in our lives, that we would not suppress or misconstrue the truth.

Posted by Bonnie at 12:15 AM | Permalink | Books Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Stumble It!

I heard about this on Rush Limbaugh's show last Friday and had to check it out: a caller named Jennifer James thanked Rush for inspiring her to write an article that would appear in that Sunday's L. A Times, in the Kids' Reading Room section. Her piece told of a Thanksgiving from her childhood when her grandfather explained what had happened at that first settlement at Plymouth. There was constant want for food, and meager daily rations, literally rationed by the Governor. But then,

Governor William Bradford made a decision. Instead of the colonists sharing their crops equally, he assigned a parcel of land to each family and told them they could keep whatever they produced for themselves. At last the Pilgrims began to prosper. Governor William Bradford wrote in his book 'Of Plimoth Plantation,' 'This had very good success, for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.' "

Well, I looked it up (what a miracle is the Internet) and whaddya know:

After the departure of this ship, (which stayed not above 14. days,) the Gover and his assistante haveing disposed these late commers into severall families, as they best could, tooke an exacte accounte of all their provissions in store, and proportioned the same to the number of persons, and found that it would not hould out above 6. months at halfe alowance, and hardly that. And they could not well give less this winter time till fish came in againe. So they were presently put to half alowance, one as well as an other, which begane to be hard, but they bore it patiently under hope of supply.171.

Now the wellcome time of harvest aproached, in which all had their hungrie bellies filled. But it arose but to a litle, in comparison of a full years supplie; partly by reason they were not yet well aquainted with the manner of Indean torne, (and they had no other,) allso their many other imployments, but cheefly their weaknes for wante of food, to tend it as they should have done. Also much was stolne both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable, and much more after ward. And though -many were well whipt (when they were taken) for a few ears of torne, yet hunger made others (whom consciente did not restraine) to venture. So as it well appeared that famine must still insue the next year aliso, if not some way prevented, or supplie should faile, to which they durst not trust. 204.

Continue reading "The First "Capitalist" Experiment"

Posted by Bonnie at 1:53 PM | Permalink | History Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Stumble It!

Genesis 2:18, 22-24: Then the Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." And the Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man...And the man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." NASB

Woman was made from man for man because he needed her. Because he was alone. Even among the splendid animals, he was alone. He had no one to help him in a way that matched him.

alone, adj.: without anyone or anything else, lacking companionship

Most of us are probably aware that we don't always understand our needs. We know our wants pretty well, but perhaps not our deepest needs. But certainly we know we need help (provision) for the meeting of both our needs and our wants. The first man, Adam, was in need. Enter woman.

help v. tr.:
1. To give assistance or support; aid
2. To contribute to the furtherance of; promote
3. To ease; relieve
4. To change for the better; improve
5. To wait on

Much of the complementarian material I've read seems to imply that woman needs man more than he needs her: without him, she has no leader. Without him, she has no purpose. In many ways this is true. Even nuns in a convent serve God in Christ, Who is represented in male terms. But then, so do monks in a monastery.

But such rhetoric seems to place emphasis on woman's relation to man in terms of #s 1, 2, and 5 above (except when it comes to sex; then perhaps it's #3) to the neglect of #4. Certainly both men and women need all five types of help from persons of both genders; this is the function of the Body of Christ. But the point is, woman was made for man not because she needed him, but because he needed her. (I think she does need him, but that's not why she was made.)

Both man and woman were made that they might look to one another, but first to God. If man depends upon woman to the exclusion of God, then trouble results. If woman depends upon man to the exclusion of God, then trouble results. But some seem to think that for a woman, to look to God is to look to a man. These persons, however, are really suggesting that for a man, to look to God is to look to woman, for justification. And this is one of the problems with certain complementarian doctrine.

Posted by Bonnie at 2:41 AM | Permalink | Gender issues Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Stumble It!

Last night I watched a program called Tribal Life, seemingly a reality show about the daily life of a tribal community on an island off the coast of Australia. This was not a hide-behind-the-trees documentary, but the cameras were a part of the tribe's routine. In fact, at times this tribe spoke very good English. It was obvious that this remote society was influenced by western culture.

I was taken aback when the program featured a young family with 3 kids--a 4th on the way. But this 4th child was too great of a burden, so with the aid of some tree bark and some other plants known to induce an abortion, the husband and wife ended the life of their unborn child. They, like humans around the globe, spoke of the abortion as something less ominous, as if he didn't intentionally prepare the toxic drink to end the life of that child, as if she didn't intentionally drink the poison. For them, it was a miscarriage. Even the show narrator avoided calling it what it was. The term abortion was never used.

This smoke-and-mirrors approach is hardly new, nor is it limited to uncivilized parts of the world. In fact, the language of death in our society has had to be reframed such that the sting of guilt doesn't exist. That's why we see the pro-aborts refer to Plan B as contraception instead of the abortifacient that it is. "Let no one deceive you with empty words" (Eph 5:6).

Continue reading "The Language of Life & Death"

Posted by Sarah at 10:29 AM | Permalink | Bioethics Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Stumble It!

There's a good bit of talk these days about "God's design for the family," "God's design for marriage," "God's design for manhood and womanhood," etc., usually in context of a charge that this design must be followed, or else...or else society as we know it will come to ruin (which may not be such a bad thing). Or, at the very least, we won't please God.

But if a thing is God's design, then it's...God's design. Immutable. Unchangeable.

However, it can be perverted. That's what sin does -- it perverts, corrupts, and pollutes God's design. But doesn't change it.

We might best think of things in terms of what perverts and corrupts them (something Catholics are better at, I think, than Protestants) before trying to determine what God's design for them is. In so doing we may also begin to see where we misuse the Bible by applying it as a rule-book (or using it to justify our own ideas) rather than as a guide to the truth about God, Christ, Creation, and ourselves, and a record of God's dealings with His people. We may then also see how we misuse and abuse God's design.

Perhaps we need not even concern ourselves with God's design, but rather with whether or not we are walking in godly trust and in the Holy Spirit, living out our salvation in Christ. I think then we will see God's design as He intended it to be -- "the way things ought to be."

Let us concern ourselves with the proper things, that we and those things we influence may be redeemed (rescued) from perversion and corruption.

Posted by Bonnie at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Faith Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Stumble It!

If you want to learn about something or someone in the public eye, where do you often look for information? Do you question if what you've found is accurate? According to this video, you should:

Comments?

Posted by Letitia at 11:27 AM | Permalink | Media Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Stumble It!

My daughter, aged 6-1/2, loves horses, so naturally she has a collection of stuffed ones (to enjoy until she gets a real one, she hopes). One or two of these go with her everywhere, though I've encouraged her to leave one in particular at home so as to keep it in good shape. Today, unfortunately, this pristine "paint" went along on an errand and, naturally, fell out of the car at first chance, onto the wet street. In an instant, its pure white "fur" was soiled with black sludge.

I told my daughter I would wash her horse, and it would be okay. But she looked at me sadly, regretfully: "It'll never be bright and clean again."

Indeed. It's a fact of life. Things don't stay new, unless one takes great pains to keep them unspoiled. And that's okay. Most things are made to be used, and used things generally get dirty, and wear out.

But, as my daughter spoke, and as I beheld her rueful eyes and the blackened stuffed animal, I thought of innocence, of things unspoiled, and of Cornelius' Plantinga, Jr.'s book, Not the Way It's Supposed to Be. Plantinga describes sin as something that has soiled a beautiful and perfect creation so that things are not the way they're supposed to be.

And I thought of all the things that are so wonderfully awe-inspiring when pure, and so spoiled, tainted, and ruined when not. I thought of all the broken things that, even when repaired, cannot be fully restored. Whether we pretend not to care, or not, and whether we try to console ourselves that they can be, or not, in reality these things can never again be what they were before they were broken: things like trust, and innocence. Things like bodies, and beautiful objects. Things like virginity. Sometimes, like relationships.

Of course, perfection is unattainable on this earth. But why do we long for the perfect -- the good, the true, and the beautiful -- if it can never be known? I believe it can, in the hereafter. But we needn't wait 'til then, or give up entirely, when it is in our power to preserve some purity on this earth, with God's help. We can still be redeemed and renewed, and pass this along to others. Though we won't be perfectly clean until we are with God forever, we'll be "okay," even more than okay. And that's better than okay -- it's good, and beautiful, and true.

Posted by Bonnie at 12:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Stumble It!

This was so cute I had to share.

Their grandfather being a train aficionado, my kids have been duly indoctrinated into all things train lore, including recordings of collected "train songs." My husband, ever mindful of his heritage, often subjects us to plays these recording at home or on long car trips. One of the songs is Patti Page's "Throw Momma From the Train":

Throw mama from the train a kiss, a kiss
Wave mama from the train a goodbye
Throw mama from the train a kiss a kiss
And don't cry, my baby, don't cry

How I miss that sweet lady with her old-country touch
Miss her quaint broken English called "Pennsylvania Dutch"
I can still see her there at the station that day
Calling out to her baby
as the train pulled away...

Well, my kids came up with their own version:

Throw Obama from the train,
Don't miss, don't miss...
Throw Obama from the train, say goodbye...

(Which then became Throw a bomba from the train...)

(And you thought kids had to watch "Sponge Bob Square Pants" to have any fun)

(Yes, it is all in fun, and they really are great kids, not violent, not disrespectful to president-elects, politicians, or others. Really)

Posted by Bonnie at 12:27 PM | Permalink | Fun Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Stumble It!

Here's a question: Do you think people are basically anarchistic?

(Yes? No? Maybe?)

In the early 1960s, Stanley Milgram (of "six degrees of separation" fame) conducted a series of controversial experiments to test whether people would ignore their own consciences in the face of compelling authority. His findings were shocking:

With numbing regularity good people were seen to knuckle under the demands of authority and perform actions that were callous and severe. Men who are in everyday life responsible and decent were seduced by the trappings of authority, by the control of their perceptions, and by the uncritical acceptance of the experimenter's definition of the situation, into performing harsh acts. A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority. (1965)

For his experiment, Milgram gathered a cross-section of citizens in New Haven, CT and told them he was examining the effect of punishment on memory and learning. Each was instructed to read questions to a subject (a trained actor) and give him electric shocks for incorrect answers. The actor-subject reacted with shrieks, etc. as switches for (faux) "shocks" of increasing voltage (indicated in ominous terminology) were thrown. When the true subject showed distress, the experimenter prodded him or her on using authoritative language. Milgram later published the results of his observations.

Cornelius Plantinga, Jr. discusses this experiment in Not the Way It's Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin, saying,

...the same pattern of obedience to authority that binds children to parents, pupils to teachers, citizens to police officers... -- the same pattern on which society depends for order and stability -- can transform people into tools of evil.

Milgram calls this pattern "the agentic state," into which a person is likely to shift

every time he enters a hierarchical structure held together by various levels of authority. Once inside,...he no longer thinks of himself as a responsible moral subject but only as an agent of others. He comes to see himself not as a person but as an instrument, not as a center of moral responsibility but as a tool.

Witness what happened in Nazi Germany, My Lai, and Watergate, not to mention "everyday life in business and industry," says Plantinga.

And it happens in churches...in schools...in marriages...and perhaps also on Wall Street. Which is why, according to Plantinga (and I agree),

whenever faced with a conflict between divine and human orders, 'We must obey God rather than any human authority.' (Acts 5:29)

(Another explanation offered by Milgram, which also no doubt happens in the above-mentioned places, was that "a subject who has neither ability nor expertise [or, I would add, confidence] to make decisions, especially in a crisis, will leave decision making to the group and its hierarchy. The group is the person's behavioral model.")

Posted by Bonnie at 8:44 AM | Permalink | Christian living Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Stumble It!

Hyperbole is not harmless; careless language bewitches the speaker's intelligence. And falsely shouting "socialism!" in a crowded theater such as Washington causes an epidemic of yawning.

Maybe.

From Will's column of Nov. 16:

McCain and Palin, plucky foes of spreading the wealth, must have known that such spreading is most of what Washington does.

Including Republicans,

whose prescription drug entitlement is the largest expansion of the welfare state since President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society gave birth to Medicare in 1965...

Contesting perpetual government claims that "seepage of government into everywhere is...to be temporary and nonpolitical," Will hones in on conservatives:

Conservatives rightly think, or once did, that much, indeed most, government spreading of wealth is economically destructive and morally dubious -- destructive because, by directing capital to suboptimum uses, it slows wealth creation; morally dubious because the wealth being spread belongs to those who created it, not government. But if conservatives call all such spreading by government "socialism," that becomes a classification that no longer classifies: It includes almost everything, including the refundable tax credit on which McCain's health-care plan depended.

Okay then.

I'd like to believe Will's claim that

Americans are an aspirational, not an envious, people

but can't help but wonder whether envy hasn't redefined the concept of "aspirational," for conservatives and non-conservatives alike. Perhaps the conservative party needs to get on the ball and start thinking again what it once thought, but also to remain aspirational in the most noble sense of the word.

(And I hope George is wrong about Obama...)

Posted by Bonnie at 12:42 PM | Permalink | Current Events Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Stumble It!

Some of which may not go to Wall Street after all, but to the auto-makers?

Economists weren't supportive of the $700 billion government bailout and probably aren't nuts about bailing out the auto industry either.

When will the madness end? I realize these are hard times and the issues are both complex and dire, but aren't they just bigger, gnarlier versions of what happens to you or me if we over-spend, or if our business plans take a turn for the worse? Hey...we end up short on cash! Imagine that.

And then, you or I must

a) cut back on spending
b) reassess our earning possibilities
c) make necessary changes
d) perhaps responsibly ask for help to get out of trouble: accept the help while it's needed, but make the hard changes necessary to get back on our own two feet, perhaps doing without a little "comfort" for a while. Or a lot, depending on how big the "mistake" is.

Really, it's a simple as that.

I guess not wanting to suffer the consequences of failure, on either our own part or as result of forces beyond our control, isn't a new thing. But it seems that perpetuation of this human tendency has become culturally acceptable. Unless of course the person in trouble is an "enemy." Then we want to see them crash and burn. But, just as it does children no good to shield them from the consequences of their actions, neither does it help the rest of us. And the bigger the hole, the harder the fall, and the more fall in.

Why does "responsibility" now mean "bailing others out" rather than taking the fall for our own failures, and taking care of those whom our failures affect?

Whatever happened to accountability?

Posted by Bonnie at 1:53 PM | Permalink | Current Events Comments (3) | TrackBack (0) | Stumble It!