Nose Bloodied

So tonight was a church-related Halloween festival, and it was pretty cool. Ming-Na (Ella’s alter-ego that emerges when she dawns her china’men outfit) made an appearance; we were having a blast. She was trancing around, checking things out, having a go in the mix of it; getting into a bit of mischief, but not too much. Just really exploring and watching the other (bigger) kids; soaking up the environment and feeding off the energy. She was too young to really do any of the activities, except for a “sucker grab”.

Anyway, she had just gotten her first “prize” from the “sucker grab” and was running around as fast as I’ve ever seen her. I was about 3 feet from her, taking video. There was a lady walking in full stride that didn’t see her, and she just kicked the crap out of her. Ella went flying and did a massive face-plant on the (concrete) basketball surface; her nose took the brunt of the fall. I don’t really blame the lady; she should have been looking since it was a kid’s carnival, but she was apologetic and obviously felt like crap. The lady even checked up on her (twice) and then fled the scene (out of uncomfortable guilt?).

A little while later, after E calmed down a bit, I noticed blood running from both nostrils and significant facial swelling. One just feels like crap, because I (in a sense) allowed it to happen. It could have been avoided had I been more aware. And that sucks...

UPDATE: Woke up with a black eye. Although she's running around and having fun like there's no tomorrow--so she can't be in too much pain. Court might call an ENT re: cartilaginous nasal structural changes.

In other MA politics news...

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."

John Kerry: Making Massachusetts proud.

Our governor's race has gone from the ridiculous to... the ridiculous-er.

First of all, polls show that, on the issues, more voters agree with Republican Kerry Healey. And yet Democrat Deval Patrick enjoys a 20-point lead in those same polls.

Second, get a load of this. First watch this Healey ad. Done? Okay, now read this front-page story from the Boston Herald.

The key quote is this, referring to the ad linked above:

"This ad perpetuates three damaging myths: first, that only women are at risk for sexual violence;

All right, stop. In what percentage of rapes in this country--reported or unreported--would you say the victims were female? That's what I thought. Next?

second, that strangers--particularly those who come from communities of color--are those who should be feared the most;

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Did we watch the same ad? DID ANYONE SEE ANYTHING ABOUT RACE IN THAT AD?!? I swear, the people saying, "Well, they're talking about rape, and we all know that's code for 'black people'" are the racists in this story.

and third, that rapists are visibly unsavory individuals," the letter read.

Again, is a rapist ever depicted in the ad at all? I don't understand what's going on in these people's heads. I mean, you'd think that they're actually worried about Healy overcoming her large deficit in a week's time, to go to these lengths.

Yeah--the Gallaudet thing is pretty interesting and saddening to a very large extent. I would really like to comment more on it, but would also like to do so when I've got more time. It'll be a busy week till Thursday, so perhaps then.

In the meantime:

Mr. Pink: Uh-uh, I don't tip.
Mr. Pink: I don't believe in it.
Mr. Pink: Don't give me that. She don't make enough money, she can quit.
Mr. Pink: I don't tip because society says I have to. Alright, I tip when somebody really deserves a tip. If they put forth an effort, I'll give them something extra. But I mean, this tipping automatically, that's for the birds. As far as I'm concerned they're just doing their job.
Mr. Pink: She was okay. But she wasn't anything special.

Greg, the story Scott brought up a few days ago has been updated... I'd still be interested in your thoughts/comments on the matter.

In the event that you often find yourself counseling single friends who lack the guts to break up with their significant others in a mature fashion, I present to you ...

dumpmonkey.com

Yes, that's right. For $24.95, your single, longing-to-be-free friend gets ...

1. A 16" plush "dump monkey" delivered to the ex.
2. A certificate explaining that the ex has been dumped on the following date and time.
3. A confirmation phone call placed to the ex ensuring that they understand the meaning of the dump monkey.
4. Free shipping.

I'm surprised you hadn't heard about this before now. I actually have a friend from high school who is now an Episcopalean priest; and yes, his church has "put on" (his words) a U2charist.

To be honest, I don't know what to say. Do I think that the band has crafted music that could be used in a meaningful church service? Yes I do. Consider the recent Yahweh off the "How to Dismantle and Atomic Bomb" album.

But let me be clear. Having said what I just said, I cannot get behind a U2charist. To me ... and maybe its just me ... the name alone implies a certain idolatry. Like we're looking to the composer as opposed to the content of the music.

The world is going nuts!

Reported by USA Today, the special service was the idea of the Reverend Paige Blair, an Episcopal priest in York Harbor, Maine, who held the first U2Charist at her church on July 31, 2005.

We let 'em be priests, and it's only a matter of time before they get "ideas"...

*ducks*

Kicking off with "Pride (In the Name Of Love)," the service also incorporates images from historical civil rights campaigners such as Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and Rosa Parks.

Oh good golly miss molly. What a frickin' joke.

Is this a Communion service or a high school assembly?

Refrickindiculous.

Scott: I almost don't know where to begin. First--how can the Episcopal church continue to call itself a church? In all seriousness... It was just a few weeks ago that one told me to not really pay much attention to be Bible, because it's just a bunch of metaphors anyway; just go forth In the Name Of Love... I'm sure this latter revelation is rather confusing for you on many levels...

Hard. Core.

Topic Two: Bummer.

I guess this is no surprise, but one really great aspect of being a prof is establishing relationships with the students that filter in and out of your dept (and life). And just yesterday, I was thinking that I actually like my current GA as a person. I wasn't quite sure what to think of her at first, as she doesn't fit much of the southern mold (i.e., constant state of polished, finished and groomed perfection). But she's a real down-to-earth kind of girl, which suits my character nicely. She also has a "get 'er done" approach to GA work, which is refreshing.

About an hour or so ago, she drops by to check in on her GA duties--and I could tell she was upset about something. So I ask, and as it turns out--her significant other had suddenly lost his hearing in one ear. He was out in the hallway, so I ask him into my office so I could question him about it. Based on what he was presenting, it didn't look good. So I pulled a string or two and got him an auditory eval by a fellow faculty--and as I suspected, near-total sensorineural loss in one ear. (This is likely caused by either a viral or bacterial infection of the cochlea. Some residual hearing may return in about 40% to 60% of the time, depending on the type of infection.)

Anyway--we sent them off to urgent care for diagnostic blood work (and corresponding medications, I would presume). It's just a bummer when you see this go down, and it's also a bummer when you see one of your own kids in a legitimately frightening situation. He is without insurance, and doing his best (with a blue-collar job) to save up for an engagement ring. At this point, I'm confident she couldn't give a damn about a ring--but this guy, who seemed like a legit good salt-of-the-earth kind of guy, wouldn't have it any other way. I honestly hope everything works out for them...

There have been some pretty weighty things go down as of late, and I’d like to post about them after I get clearance from headquarters. But with that said, after reading an article like this--there is no doubt in my mind just how evil my nature is. Glance through the first paragraph and you’ll get what I mean...

You know Scott- -it seems like the frustration here may be the false dichotomy between “Christian Service” and the science of running an effective (thereby profitable) business. Couple this with a BoD structure that holds no real accountability, and you’ve got a recipe for frustration in those who know better. And for what it’s worth, it would frustrate the hell out of me too. Do not hold me accountable for business standards in which your environment and culture do not allow, support, or even value. [I was actually talking to my mom about a (roughly similar situation), and was pretty surprised to hear her response--which was essentially to allow marginal (or poorly run) organizations to fail, rather than stepping in to try and save the organization, or otherwise protect it from itself.] As an outsider looking in, it seems like the organization may be trying to do too much with too little, thereby limiting growth and potentially offering lesser-quality service (when compared to what it could be if the scope of the organization was shrunk to fit what it can actually support). Perhaps I am too secular, and do not have faith--but this is a phenomenon in which I have observed in too many Christian service organizations...

So the whole purpose of this post is to provide me with an opportunity to vent. If you are not in a mood to to listen to a friend vent, than I would humbly suggest you skip forward to the next, more uplifting post.

Working for a volunteer Board of Directors is ... how to say ... extremely taxing. I logged on to my email this morning to find a conversation in mid-stream. Apparently, without first discussing it with the Board, one of my Board members has taken it upon herself to invite a fundraising consultant who has been "very successful" to speak to us about fundraising for 45 minutes. Apparently, she thinks he has some things to say. This leads to a discussion about hiring on a part-time fundraising director who could oversee donor relations, public relations, etc...

My issue here is this. In two-and-half years of service, I have created a brand new fundraising effort that has brought into $25K in '06 alone. So that's $25K that did not exist two years ago. Two of the three major fundraisers beat their budgeted goal by $10K a piece. So by all objective measurements, this has been a successful year.

But the BoD wants more; and they want it from a staff that is desperately underpaid and desperately overworked. In fact, we are so poor as an organization that we do not even offer benefits to any staff. No medical, no life, no retirement, no nothing. Just a subpar paycheck and a thanks-for-working-hard-but-could-you-try-a-little-harder-next-time. And now, from a razor-thin budget, we want to bring on a new staff member, pay them poorly and have them raise all kinds of new money?!

This makes absolutely no sense. But because the Board is volunteer, we have no recourse. There is no formal evaluations of the Board. There is no nothing. So they come in for a few years, scream: "try harder" and then walk away feeling good about themselves.

I'm going nuts.

While this happened Saturday, I just found out about it today. (As we were out of town.) This type of thing is exactly why I left DC; the senselessness of it all is deeply disturbing, and my sense of grace for the felon is small (if any). Certainly substance abuse was involved, but at some point--that is no excuse for wretched values. The officer just got back from 2 tours in Afghanistan; he was 30 years old, married, with 4 children.

You will be assimilated...

... if you know what's... bad for you.

Matt -- All these fake holidays created by venders of whatever-sort are *so* full of crap. What I want to know is--what happened to the dowry? The chic’s family is supposed to be giving *us* money. So where did all this “you have to buy a ring worth 2 to 6 months your gross salary” BS come from? Yeah--that’s a great way to start off your fiscal union right? Dump a sixth to half of your income into an object that does nothing relative to financial health. Now--I know what all you female Bonobos are doing right now… I can sense the negative pressure (secondary to your gasping) from here. But c’mon. Cubic Zirconia looks every bit as good as a diamond, and allows financial sanity to prevail. Somewhere along the lines, the whole concept of the dowry went awry, and I’m calling shenanigans. Let’s bring the dowry back! I always wanted a motorcycle…

Update: teh gay is back!

Did you know that last Saturday was "Sweetest Day"? Neither did I, until ProFlowers.com sent me a kindly reminder... this morning.

The belatedness aside... "Sweetest Day"?!? Do we not shower them with money enough on Valentine's Day, that they had to go and invent a second, identical "holiday"?

Actually, from the looks of it, it's the candy industry that makes a killing, not the florists.

It's you. :-)

One of these days I'm going to figure out how to say what's in my head as well as other people seem to be able to.

This seems akin, to me, to the end of a contestant's run on "Deal Or No Deal", where, once they make a final deal for a big chunk of money, say, $294,000, Howie says, "Okay, now let's see whether or not you made a good deal." Then they open the case the contestant had chosen, and there was $500,000 in it! Oh no! The implication somehow being that the contestant did not make a good choice. Well yeah, we know that NOW. But there's no way anyone could have known it beforehand. Hindsight's always 20/20, isn't it.

Is it me, or does anyone else miss posting on Bonobo Signs? :-)

Do topics on this board even get "heated"? If there's any heat associated with other contributors to BS (formally known as HS), it's not felt by me. But I'm just that way; my emotional compass is broken. I've not been online as I've been thinking about Scott's post from a few days ago...and the fact that we've been traveling since Thursday. Anyway--I think topics generally run their coarse; that's always been my take anyway.

But in the meantime, going through airport security was comical...

Take off your shoes, sir.
She's going to have to take her shoes off too.
My 14 month old daughter needs to take off her shoes?
That's correct sir.
But these aren't shoes; they're Robeez. They're more like slippers.
Slippers, sir?
Yeah--like bedroom slippers. Do babies have to take off their slippers?
I'm not sure, sir.
Well, can we get a verdict?
It'll take a while sir.
It might just be easier if she took off her shoes, sir.

...

Ma'am, we're going to need to search your bag.
My diaper bag? Have at it.
This sippy cup is filled with water. That's contraband, ma'am.
You're not allowed to carry a sippy cup on a plane?
Not if it's filled with water, ma'am.
What is my child supposed to drink?
I don't know ma'am. I guess you could buy water in the secure area.
Well, can I just drink the water myself? That's the only sippy cup that we have.
No ma'am. It's been confiscated.
But it's right there.
I know ma'am. It's been confiscated.

...(a few seconds go by)...

I'll have to be confiscating your lotion ma'am.
My lotion? That's AHAVA. My mother-in-law brought that back from Israel for me. It costs about 30 bucks a tube.
I'm sorry ma'am. Passengers aren't allowed to carry on personal effects such as this greater than 3 ounces.
So you're confiscating my lotion?
I'm confiscating your lotion, ma'am.
(...a second or two goes by...)
Tell you what ma'am. I'll let you get by with the sippy cup, but I've still got to confiscate your lotion.
It's very good lotion you know; 30 bucks a tube. You should keep it for yourself.
I'm sure it is, ma'am. We're not allowed to keep personal effects for ourselves.
Have a nice day.

...As such, I'm thinking about setting up the domain LetsBringBackProfiling.com

Oh make no mistake, my friend. There is great virtue to be found in a commitment to excellence. And Starbucks, as the pinnacle of coffee-related excellence, is the product of virtue.

I wouldn't say we drop topics when they become heated. Actually... maybe we do, but I wouldn't say it's because they get heated that we stop. I think we just get to a point where everyone's said all that they have to say for the moment. And maybe one or more persons read something that they needed to let simmer a while. That certainly happens to me every once in a while.

Also, when we "go deeper" on stuff, the time and effort required (by me personally) to contribute something really meaningful to the discussion are just not available.

... Wait a sec, did you just call Starbucks "virtuous"?

Have you ever noticed our curious propensity to raise difficult questions only to drop them when the conversation becomes "heated." My wife brought this to my attention last night when I mentioned Matt's errant belief that Dunkin' Donuts is superior both to the most excellent Krispy Kreme and the slightly-less-excellent-but-still-virtuous Starbucks.

She was like: "How did you get from homosexuality and genetics to the virtues of East Coast vs. Midwest donuts [even typing that makes me feel like I'm in some kind of rap battle. Long live Tupac!]."

"Quite easily, " I replied. "Through a discussion of teachers, mathematics and students' decaying attitudes towards anything that is not fun."

She didn't understand. :-)

Welp, since I seem to have the place to myself, may I turn your attention to a blog post from over a year ago, about teaching math. (I've been doing some internet surfing on the topic since that study came out.) It highlights the unfortunate ways that politcs manage to barge their way into the math education debate.

The comments are just as good. Allow me to quote the following, which is yet another example of someone reading my mind and typing it all out.

In general, it is my impression that the real problem lying at the root of the 'fuzzy math' push is that the people we currently task with teaching math at this level, for the most part, do not seem to actually like math. They find multiplication tables "boring", and memorization of course is just "rote", and so on. These descriptions we always hear of "standard" math aren't coming from 8 year olds, they're coming from teachers! In other words, our math teachers don't like the subject of math. That's fine (it's their right and all), but it's also obviously a bad policy result, and has two effects:

-It makes them *bad* teachers. They hate what they have to teach so don't do it well; as well, they can't help but convey their disdain for the subject to the students, if only inadvertently.

-It causes them (understandably, actually) to try to alter what math is. Since the subject of math is boring for them, why not just change it? It would be more fun to teach if math were different than it is. So, they set about making math different. That's what this is about.

Teachers do not want to teach math, so they clamor to teach something else. They have invented that "something else" to teach in lieu of math, something that they find more interesting and exciting to be teaching in a classroom.... 'fuzzy math' policies are all about making teachers happy and allowing them to have more fun in the classroom, not about successfully teaching students math - which they do not actually seem to want to do.

Amen, brother.

Boy, we really go in spurts, don't we?

Now that Dunkin Donuts has expanded nationwide, to places such as... 2543 W Algonquin Rd, Algonquin, Illinois... 13607 Jefferson Davis Hwy (Rt. 1), Woodbridge, Virginia... and... nowhere within 50 miles of Oxford, Mississippi... you can all (well, almost all), for a limited time, share in the joys of the French Toast Twist.

I stopped at my local DD on the way to work this morning to partake, and it was PACKED. Even though I get there at about the same time every time (not every DAY, Michelle), it seems to be a crap shoot as to how big the line will be. Anyway, maybe word has finally gotten out about these things. Just thought I'd share the love.

Oh, and I don't wanna hear your "Starbucks is better" or "Krispy Kreme is better" hooey. You grow up in New England, and two things are for sure... a) you're a Red Sox fan, and b) Dunkin Donuts beats all.

and there was much rejoicing

Greg, are you saying that the study itself is pseudoscience? God I hope not. It was music to my ears—that is, if the study and its conclusions are legit, then they validate a lot of what I've been thinking about math education for the past few years.

We might want to focus on the math that kids are learning and just be a little less obsessed with the fact that they have to enjoy every minute of it

Yes. Thank you.

Even efforts to make math relevant may be irrelevant, says the study, released Wednesday.

Nations that try to teach math in terms of daily life have the lowest test scores.

*does happy dance*

Loveless says pleasing kids has comes at the expense of mastering skills.

*does backflip*

Math textbooks in the United States, for example, tend to have colorful photos, charts and stories to please kids, he noted. In other nations, the texts strictly have math.

Fennell said engaging, relevant lessons are important. But he agreed with Loveless that every lesson should be about teaching math, not simply providing a fun class activity.

Oh this is wonderful. Really, I could have told these people all of this for free!!!

So anyway, yeah, Greg, what exactly was pseudoscientific?

Scott--I'll reply when I've got more time; either this afternoon or tomorrow.

But until then--I though that Matt might find this pseudoscience interesting...
EDIT: This article may or may not be pseudoscientific. I really didn't read through the article.

Ten days ago, sometime near the start of Ramadan, I made a decision to engage in a fast. In my 33 years, I have never fasted mostly because I did want to. But I saw a news article on the beginning of Ramadan; and I was struck by the notion that Muslims are, in many ways, more committed to a their false god than I am to the one true living God. And before you ask, I'm not talking about issues of legalism here. I don't think that all Christians must fast for a certain length of time. I'm just talking about the idea that I live a very comfortable life. So I decided to fast before my banquet in the hopes that the discipline would lead me to a place of prayer.

Anyway, I started this fast, and about three days in, I found myself to be greatly discouraged. I was operating from the equation:

fasting --> hunger --> awareness of one's dependence upon God for His provision --> prayer

But that wasn't working. Basically, whenever I stopped to pray, I found that all I could think about was the fact that I was starving. And I'd lose focus and before I knew it, I wasn't even praying. I was just meditating upon the fact that I was freakin' hungry!

But than I was struck by something; and it turned the entire experience around. I am, quite factually, a glutton. I eat not because I am hungry and not because I need sustanence. I eat because my mouth is bored. I eat because I have a habit of putting things into my mouth simply to give it something to do. I eat because my social life revolves around meal times. I eat because food is in front of me.

And at 33 years of age, I have come to the realization that the weight I carry is not normal weight that all middle-aged men carry. I carry weight because I am a glutton. I am fat not by virtue of being a 33-year old male, but by virtue of my own lack of self-discipline and my sinful choices.

So now, 10 days in, things are totally turning around. I have lost 12 pounds in that time. I find that my awareness of this sin is actually driving me to prayer. And rather than meditating upon hunger, I am actually praying for the strength to continue with this discipline. The weird thing is, I truly think He is giving me that strength. Right now, I am sitting in a resturant (because it is a wi-fi hotspot) and I am not remotely tempted to order anything. I'm just content to realize that God is using this time to weed out a long-hidden, self-deceived pattern of sin.

Funny how we start off with the intent to do one thing; and God totally turns it around to do something else. I thought I was fasting for the sake of Tri-County and it turns out that I was fasting for the purpose of seeing my own sin.

Hey Greg,

Saw your former employer in the paper today. Apparently, the student body has locked down the school in a massive protest that has lasted for 11 days. From what I could glean from the article, the students were upset at the appointment of a new president that is not "deaf enough." In other words, she was not fluent in ASL and had ties to the tech community that wants to "heal" deafness. What I found interesting was the idea that the students believe that deafness makes them unique, not deficient or abnormal. As you and I have talked about some of these same issues (as they pertain to the stuttering community), I was curious to hear your thoughts.

P.S. Apologies for the link to a USA Today article. I am in Rantoul, IL and USA Today is the closest thing I have to a legitimate news source. Yikes!

I am a poster on Bonobo Signs, not that there's anything wrong with that...

Anyway, today I read a brutally honest piece on Yahoo Finance that dealt with a concept in which I questioned at age 9. (i.e., why would the US go off the Gold Standard?) So if global economic theory is your bag (baby), then it may be worth a look.

And Matt--regarding MMORPG's, I don't know if you saw a South Park about it. I've stopped watching that show seasons ago, but managed to catch it by chance on TIVO. Perhaps one of the funniest lines was something like, "How can you kill that which has no life?" (Referring to killing a WOW character, who in reality was some uber-computer-nerd with no life.) It will be interesting to see if this is actually becomes some sort of societal paradigm shift, but at this point, I doubt it. At some point, the real reality will step in and usurp its fictitious rival. I did a lot of bbs in college, and was even (somehow) able to maintain 5 distinct conversations at once--an act which I doubt I could do (or have the desire to do) today. Then I grew up, gained responsibilities, and lost interest... I guess we'll wait and see... I just read an interesting blog about the effects of WOW here; it may be worth a quick glance.

P.S. What makes this funny is because it's true! (Crazy inlaw story #4,394.)
P.P.S. This One is Definatley worth your time. Give this a read, let's start a movement!

I changed it about 24 hours ago, just for grins, with the intent of changing it back once everyone'd seen it.

So is this the future of "community"? Seems simultaneously alluring and creepy to me. Of course about five years ago I'd have been all over it.

EDIT: Here's a Popular Science article from just last month about Second Life. Maybe I've been reading too much Postman, but... the creepiness—the sense that somehow something is wrong about this trend—is starting to outweigh the coolness.

What the????
When did that change and how long have we been picking lice off each other? I need to check in more often. So very tired....

Where can we get those stickers?

So Court, Ella and I went to the zoo on Saturday. We were tooling around, trying to get our monster to sleep--and we passed by the Bonobo exhibit. It was then that I had an epiphany. We need to get those pink triangle "safe place" stickers, so I can put them up on the glass enclosure. One facing outside (for the exhibit viewers), and another facing inside (for the Bonobos themselves). That way, it’ll be a safe and accepting gay environment for all involved. (I even took some pics of the gay animals, including the gay 14 month old Bonobo that was very similar in size to Ella, albeit with better mobility skills. Considered posting yet-another-pic, but decided against it.)

C'mon guys--let's make this a reality. If we got enough stickers, I could “out” other gay animals as well. This is the stuff that Zug is made of…

Scott--any time you double the take in a year, well--that's a great freakin year. Congratulations on some astounding results...

Sorry I haven't posted in a few days. We had our second major fundraiser of the year on Saturday night, so I have been working 'round the clock. The good news is that we had the best banquet we have ever had -- both in terms of fun and financial support. Congressman Don Manzullo came and helped out with a live auction (who woulda thought that a Congressman could be that funny!). By the end of the night, we raised more money that we ever have in 19 years of doing this, and twice as much as we raised the previous year. So an incredible night, even if the week leading up to it was phenomenally taxing.

Hey Greg, I thought the lightning news story was a stitch; and I also agree that the recent kitler is a fine, fine example of a cat that looks like Hitler.

Matt: I totally understand your hesitancy to buy Satinover from the article. I noticed the publication date when I first recommended it. My hope was that in the article, you would see that this guy actually is talking about the validity of scientific pronouncements based upon his analysis of the research methology (and not upon any "faith" he may or may not subscribe to). Anyway, the book is far more up to date and well worth the read when you get the time.

Speaking of reading, I sit for my final comp exam nine days from now. Before than, I have to brush up on "inerrancy/inspiration", "election and the extent of the atonement", "Enlightenment/Postmodern philosophy" and my personal favorite "Christ and Culture" (whatever that means). So if you think about me and you are so inclined, please pray for my exam on the 25th. I am so ready to get this process over with.

Gotta run.

Just a little humor for your Monday morning (see above).

Great. Just great.

This means that same-sex sexuality—long disparaged as a quirk of
human culture—is a normal, and probably necessary, fact of life.

With documentation of gay or lesbian behavior among giraffes, penguins, parrots, beetles, whales and dozens of other creatures, the Oslo Natural History Museum concludes human homosexuality cannot be viewed as "unnatural."

"We may have opinions on a lot of things, but one thing is clear—homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom, it is not against nature," an exhibit statement said.

So the logic here is, if animals do X, then it's okay for humans to do X? Do I really need to provide counter-examples?

One radical Christian said organizers of the exhibition—partly funded by the Norwegian government—should "burn in hell," Soeli said.

Oh good, I was afraid they'd go the whole article without mentioning that Christians Are Evil Hate-Mongers. Actually, wait, it appears to be one unnamed Christian, taken to represent the millions and millions of others in the world.

"Bonobos are bisexuals, all of them," Soeli said...

... scarcely able to contain his glee.

Ok--so where were we?

I just finished reading a brief article demonstrating Scott's point on the infusion of pop-culture beliefs creating a cultural premise for "science". Birds and bees may be gay: museum exhibition. It may be worth a read, and a comment or two!

Funny tid-bit of the day: Today, two of my (smarter) graduate students learned that records (i.e., albums played on a phonograph) were double-sided. This revelation was shocking to them, and subsequently quite humorous. I guess you had to be there.

Kitler Update. A strong contender, I believe.

Now c'mon Matt...had one of your teachers had a turd (terd?) stain on his or her pants, would you have brought it up?

To me, it just sounds like good natured humor. Almost like the time in grad school when one of my profs wore a see-through cocktail gown w/o underwear for a 3 hour lecture. *shudders* *remembers the control-top panty-hose* *convulses again* Ok--nowhere near like the time one of my grad school profs wore a see-through cocktail gown without underwear for a 3 hour lecture. I spoke of it to no one for three full days.

As of yet, I've not had any serious gaffs that I know of... Although I've got 1 pair of pants in which one of my buttons (i.e., button-fly) comes undone regularily... Given the nature of my students, I gotta find some more reliable pants...

Speaking of Pants...

Just to lighten the mood a little...

I'm sure you all will be delighted to know that I spent pretty much the whole day today with a large smear of chocolate (thank you, Dunkin Donuts chocolate chip muffin) on the seat of my pants. I've taught three classes today so far, and not one student alerted me to this fact; I had to be told by an art teacher.

There are some snickers from earlier today that make a little more sense now, though...

Language, Culture and Morality ...

• Sin = stealing an item
• Descriptive noun of individual committing the sin = thief
• Public perception of individual = bad

• Sin = sleeping with someone who is not your wife
  
• Descriptive noun of individual committing the sin = adulturer
  
• Public perception of individual = bad

• Sin = unjmustly taking someone's life
  
• Descriptive noun of individual committing the sin = murderer
  
• Public perception of individual = bad
  

• Sin = sex with someone of the same gender
  
• Descriptive noun of individual committing the sin = homosexual
  
• Public perception of individual = okay, because I was born that way.

This is why I think labels and language matters. This is why I think a discussion of genetics matters. It's why apologetics matters. Science is falsely eroding our moral base and that is in direct definance of Scripture. So if culture won't hear us when we speak of Scripture, let's learn to talk in their language and pave the way for the Bible. It's nothing more than Paul surveying the city and its idols, learning the ways of the people, before he mounts Mars Hill.

I have to say, I only skimmed the Satinover article. Part of what put me off from the get-go is the fact that—as far as I can determine—it was written a decade ago. And if you're talking about "current" research, that's a wicked long time. I might be more interested in the "extensively updated second edition" of his book, which apparently was released in 2004.

Greg,


Some points of clarification. We agree on the fact that neither science nor faith really wants to hear what the other side has to say (there are, of course, notable exceptions such as the many scientisits working in quantum theory, and those working in intelligent design). What you asked was whether apologetics is a field that tries to merge science and faith. To that I would say the answer is no. Apologetics is a branch of Christian thought that seeks to make a defence of the faith. In short, while no man can ever reach Christ by reasoning his way there, apologetics attempts to remove any barriors that stand in the way between human reason and faith. If it is successful, the non-believer will have no reasonable excuse not to believe, and he/she will be left with nothing but the state of their own heart. Do they want to believe and thus submit their lives to living in conformity with the truth, or do they want to live in a state of denial because denial allows them to live according to the flesh. That's the place that apologetics seeks to bring the non-beleiver to.

So does apologetics deal with science? Yes, but certainly not exclusively. Other issues include the philosophical problem of pain (God=love; God=all powerful; evil/pain exists; Why does God do nothing?), etc...

Now , as to the specifics of your argument/question. Let's assume for a moment that Ella comes home from school and tells you that her teacher informed her that 2+2=17.6. You would , undoubtedly, look at her and say: "Ella, 2+2=4." And then you would probably contact the teacher and say: " What the heck are you teaching my kid?" The Bible says nothing about the subject of mathematics, and yet still you would act. You would do this because you believe that the field of mathematics (while still in its infancy) , has proven you to be correct. And you would not want your daughter to be taught something that is incorrect. Truth, whether covered by the Bible or not, is still truth; and it must be safeguarded.

Now, before you say that 2+2=4 is a fact. Consider the fact that the history of human knowledge is littered with "facts" that have later been born out to be "false." I'm not even talking about "flat earth" stuff. What about statements like "the atom is the smallests unit of biology and is indivisible?" What about statements like "black holes absorb all light?" These are statements that have been asserted to be "true" and yet we now know that they are false.

My point here is that regardless of the fact that our knowledge is limited, you would still make a stand on the knowledge that is available to you because you want your daughter educated in a reasonable way. You want her educated in a way that conforms to your understanding of science, no matter how limited that understanding is.

Same deal with the "gay gene" argument. Only now, in this argument, the science (which is arguably very sketchy at best) intrudes on issues of immorality, and is used to undermine the "credibility" of the Bible. We cannot afford to be silent on this issue. And while I do not base my faith in science, I am slowly learning how to speak the language of science because that is what the world speaks. Do I think apologetics are always successful? No. In fact, on a personal level, I doubt that they are. But I believe that in addition to the great commission, there is a cultural mandate to restrain evil. And anything that cuts away at our understanding of morality deserves to be responded to.

I’m not getting the confusion. Maybe I’m dumb, which is entirely possible, but things seem pretty clear to me…

So with regards to your question can we not make a statement that God loves someone or something without an asterisk, I would suggest that in today's culture, it is unwise to do so.

Modernity doesn’t look for God to be a God, but rather some type of “spirituality” that already conforms to a person’s pre-existing bias of what is “right” and “wrong” without holding people accountable. So by emphasizing God’s love, one is allowing the modern relativist to easily overlook the “harder” (i.e., more accountable) aspects of the religion. Because God loves me, it's ok when I do _____. Because God loves me, I won’t be going to hell.

Does God love a sinner who struggles with the sin of homosexuality," I would tend to say "yes, He does," but that love is not unconditional in the sense that His love has been expressed in the form of Christ, who demands some sort of answer of faith.

Another well stated point, but I’m wondering if it’s entirely accurate. Love and Accountability are two entirely different entities. Can God love a person (even unconditionally), but still hold them accountable for their choices? I see two different variables that have been (artificially) put on the same spectrum. Salvation isn’t about God loving me, it’s about my acceptance of Grace and obedience to His teaching. In science, one looks for things that are necessary and sufficient for _____. What is necessary & sufficient for salvation? Acceptance of His Grace and obedience to His teaching. God’s love isn’t even involved in that equation, unless you’re some kind of Calvinist or something that would suggest that if God doesn’t like you, you won’t be pre-destined to be in the “club.”

It seems to me that the point being made is to not even follow the rules of modernity; to not accept the basic humanistic premise as valid. Humanity has used perverted relativism to create a war of semantics that misrepresents reality. As such, it is suggested that modern Christians not even play that game by accepting the simple tenets of modern semantics. (This is actually debate 101; don’t even allow the competing premise to be considered as valid.) A Christian isn't against pro-choice—as rape or non-consensual sex is a bad thing; they are against pro-killing-of-a-fetus. Similarly, while God may “love” the gay, that Godly desire of salvation for all is overshadowed by the accountability of the gay person to follow the teaching of Christ—a facet that has been largely obscured by a semantic slight-of-hand within the modern presentation of God, religion, and spirituality. Obfuscation is certainly a great satanic tool.

So perhaps Scott is saying that if he’s going to err, he will choose to err on the other side of the fence.

Matt,

I too have been "sleeping on our discussion" and I had a few things I wanted to pass on. In my last post, I talked briefly about the different uses of language within an evangelical context versus an evangelistic context; and I said that I was talking to you in an evangelical context. What I did not stop to think about was the fact that you may have been doing the same when you said "God loves homosexuals." Using short-term terminology without the loaded implications that come through the culture we live in. So if that was the case, my apologies.

With regards to your noun versus adjective question, here are my thoughts. First, you raise an excellent point; and I can honestly say that I have never really thought about that before. Does a declarative statement that God = noun carry more weight than the numerous statements where God is described as an adjective God [e.g. loving, holy, etc...] On a gut level, without any real study, I tend to think it might. But that might just be my initial reaction. Regardless, quite an interesting thought, and one that I will raise with a pastor friend of mine tonight when we gather for dinner.

Now, as for the specifics of this discussion, let us assume that the statement God = x is, in fact, more authoritative than a statement with an adjective that describes God. 2 Thessalonians 1:6 records a statement that "God is just," while 1 John 1:5 says that "God is light" and Psalm 99:9 states that "God is holy." So even if the premise of your question is, in fact, correct, it wouldn't impact the core of our conversation. Love cannot be elevated over and above the fact that God is holy, just and light (which is contrasted with the darkness of sin).

In the end, I think you and I are actually on the same page. The core of your thought appears to center around not wanting to be a putz-monkey when it comes to caring for a population that has largely been demonized by the church. I remember that you had a friend at Wheaton who struggled with homosexuality and as I said earlier, I had a friend who committed suicide over the issue. So if anything I have said strikes you as being "intolerant" or spiteful, than chalk that up to the issues that plague internet communication.

My heart on this issue is very clear. I beleive that God loves His creation and that would include everyone within it. But at a certain point (and I do not necessarily think that that point can only arrive on Judgment Day [consider God's hardening of Pharoah's heart after Scripture records that Pharoah repeatedly hardened his own heart]), God justice and holiness also demand that He cannot tolerate sin indefinitely. Sin has corrupted His order, and while He desires to redeem it, He also gives us a freedom to reject that redemption. And I think all of this must be kept in a balanced perspective, especially as we live in a society that increasingly views God as a lovely entity that couldn't possibly frown on their choices.

So I think the only thing we are in disagreement over is the issue of whether or not there is a genetic predisposition to sin. And that is where I struggle. Because while the Fall was certainly universal in scope, I find it difficult to believe that the Fall necessarily forces someone into a life of sin. But ... even if I granted you a genetic predisposition for the sake of this argument, I still believe that God is a God of miracles. And He has power over the physical as well as the spiritual. So even if, for the sake of argument, the Fall has corrupted our genetic make-up in such a way that it actually causes us to gravitate towards sin (against our own desire), God can still heal that genetic disfunction. To say that He can't is to say that something is beyond the power of God. And that is an untenable proposition from my perspective.

Have you had a chance to read Satinover's article?

After sleeping on it, Scott, I've come up with this. Tell me how off I am.

We both agree that the statement "God loves homosexuals" is true. (I'm defining the term as simply "those who are sexually attracted to members of the same sex". And let's throw an "exclusively" in there, so as not to muddy the waters with, as we called them in college, "coin-flippers".) You just don't recommend telling homosexuals that God does indeed love them, for fear that they might think that that means that their attraction must be "good" and God would approve of their acting on it.

What about the statement "God loves you just the way you are"? Again, I think it's a true statement, but it can be very easily misinterpreted.

Also, I thought about this... you talked about elevating one attribute of God over another being a "dangerous" thing. (I don't remember if you used that word, those are just "scare quotes".) Do you think it's at all significant that the Bible says that "God is love", and never "God is justice"? Sure, it talks about how God is just, but that's different. It's an adjective. I'm talkin' nouns here.

Scott--not a question, well--maybe it is. More of a clarification, I guess. You wrote:

when the culture proclaims that there is a "gay gene" (and that is not my phrase, but a phrase used in many journals and magazines), it does me no good to say: "But the Bible says ..." This is an issue of apologetics. Culture isn't concerned with what the Bible says. So we talk in a languauge -- in this case, the language of science ...

I follow your train of thought... but the areas of science and religion really can't mix. They're like oil and water. One is faith based, the other is evidence based. Thus, any argument in one isn't seen as valid in the other. (As you pointed out.) Is this what apologetics tries to do? Merge Science and Religion? If that's the case, then... well, good luck. It will never work. If an apologist attempts to base or associate his religious belief or perspective on an infintile paradigmatic understanding (such as the human genome)--then I'll just stand back, watch the train wreck, and laugh about it. So much of science is fabricated marketing and intellectual masterbation; scientific revolutions happen all the time.

I understand it's a culture war--so that part, I get. Public skepticism of the mythical gay-gene to counter the liberal agenda is a noble cause. But the infusion of science and religion relative to the great commission just seems antithetical.

Without wanting to inflame your sense of aggravation, I would suggest to you (Matt) that your confusion comes from cherry-picking statements from two separate arguments. In the first argument, I was suggesting that it is generally unwise to make the blanket statement "God love [fill in the blank]" because He has a number of other reactions that are also at play. So with regards to your question can we not make a statement that God loves someone or something without an asterisk, I would suggest that in today's culture, it is unwise to do so.

In the second argument, I was going back to my previous statement regarding the "gay gene." If you ask me "Does God love a sinner who struggles with the sin of homosexuality," I would tend to say "yes, He does," but that love is not unconditional in the sense that His love has been expressed in the form of Christ, who demands some sort of answer of faith. If you ask me "Does God love a homosexual," I would tend (within an envangelical context, not within an evangelistic context) to say, "No" because within our culture the use of the word homosexual implies more than someone who partakes in a particular activity. It implies someone who is powerless to alter their behavior because they were born that way. And I don't buy it. So within an evangelical context (like we have here on the Hobo Signs), I will call you out on the use of language.

Take this entirely out of the context of what we are talking about. Think about my ministry field and the issue of abortion. Culture has labeled the two options "Pro-choice" and "Pro-life." But this is completley bogus. Both sides argue that there is a legitimate choice to be made. One asks you to make a choice in favor of another human being. The other side asks you to make a choice in favor of yourself. In either case, a choice is made. But by labeling one side as "pro-choice," culture implicitly suggests that the other side is against you having a choice. They want to dominate you and force you into a state of slavery to the Judeo-Christian ethic (If you think I'm being dramatic, read the bioethicist Peter Singer and the movement founder Margaret Sanger).

At stake here is the issue of labels and the issue of power. In my opinion, you use of the commonly accepted label carries with it an implied sense of powerlessness. That's all. Maybe you didn't mean to imply that. Maybe you did. I don't know ...

And Greg, as for you comments regarding my decision to talk about science, two comments for you. One, Satinover is not an evangelical. He's not even a Christian. So this isn't sloppy "Christain" science. Take a look at his resume and the article and tell me that he isn't speaking a scientist's language. Secondly, when the culture proclaims that there is a "gay gene" (and that is not my phrase, but a phrase used in many journals and magazines), it does me no good to say: "But the Bible says ..." This is an issue of apologetics. Culture isn't concerned with what the Bible says. So we talk in a languauge -- in this case, the language of science -- to say: "Hey, the evidence ain't there to support what you are saying. So before you promote this in schools as a hard fact, get your science straight." As for me, I believe that Scripture is authoritative and I do not base my understanding of the subject upon the foundations of science. I base it on Scripture. Then, from there, I go to science to have the conversation with people who are convinced that science has said something significant.

There's a lot to respond to there, Scott, so I'm going to have to limit myself, for now, to the second half of your post.

First, this severely aggravated the logician in me:

Do I believe that God loves everyone? Yes.
...
... it is accurate to say that God loves homosexuals...
...
I cannot accept the statement: "God loves homosexuals.”
...
Does that make sense?

Um, not in the least. And you're concerned by my usage of language? Am I never allowed to say that God is a God of love without an asterisk indicating that, yes, He's also just?

Thoughtout Scripture, those that are not living by faith (OT and NT) are regularly described as the enemies of God.

If God can’t love His enemies, what the hell chance do we have?

Furthermore, from an eschatological perspective, those that are sinners and are not covered by the grace of Christ will ulimately be separated from the love of God.

"ultimately" being the key word.

you imply that homosexuality is at the core of one's identity and is in some way inseparable from an individual's personhood.

I would argue that sexual identity is more tied up in "the core of one's identity" than, say, lying or swearing. I wouldn't use the word "inseparable".

So am I or am I not allowed to tell people that God loves them, without knowing who they're shagging—or would like to shag—and how they feel about it?

Scott... Yes, I feel that our relationship has received partial rectification from your prior demeening comments.

Wow—active day on the boards… But in other news, I would urge (Scott) that the lack of an overt “gay-gene” argument be reconsidered... as it (at least to me) comes across as a yet-another-evangelical-oversimplification.

You suggested that God loves homosexuals. By doing so, you imply that homosexuality is at the core of one's identity and is in some way inseparable from an individual's personhood. As I do not believe that homosexuality is genetically determined (although there may be a genetic correlation - huge difference there!), I cannot accept the statement: "God loves homosexuals." What I believe is that God has lovingly extended an offer to all people, including those that practice the sin of homosexuality.

Despite our increasing understanding of the Human Genome, it is on the very rare occasion that a single gene is found that accounts for a trait or behavior. On the contrary, many (if not most) of the complex (i.e., disordered) characteristics, attributes or traits are polygenetic, and are subsequently significantly more difficult to demonstrate within our current understanding. (Stuttering being one such example; a predisposition that has inexplicably strong ties to heredity, but lacks a simple genetic explanation.)

I think your argument was to suggest that predisposition or orientation does not condone behavior, and I think it needs to stay there. Bringing in the weakness of the gay-gene research is basing an argument on the current limitations within the prevailing genetic research paradigm. I generally don’t like to place my faith-based arguments on the foundation of a human science.

I choose to believe that the fall perverted humanity and everything else within the universe. Subsequently, there is death and perversion. Is it possible that this perversion affects the neurological development and processing toward the predisposition of gayness? I can’t see why not, as there are documented genetic predispositions toward other deviancies. But this predisposition has no influence on one’s personal accountability to God. In short, sin ensures that life is not fair. Ultimately, the Godly standards applied to us are not relative to human “fairness” secondary to the perversion of humanity. Ipso facto (the word of the day), predisposition, orientation, or personal choice becomes a moot issue relative to accountability toward God. Thus, the issue of a "gay-gene" and gay-sin aren't even on the same continuum.

Greg,

Does this last post satisfy you? Are you now content that I am not reducing you to an entertainment venue? :-)

Similar, but not the Same.

So my lab space is in another building; believe it or not, it's essentially an office on the floor that houses African American Studies. I haven't had the opportunity to introduce myself over there, as I'm generally in and out like a hermit. Today, I go over there and pass by this pic. (Please take the time to view it; excuse the crappy quality, it's a cell phone pic.)

Yeah, I've got comments. And, undoubtedly, they will be racist. Whatever "racism" is.

So yeah--I'll bite. There's a whole hell of a lot "wrong" with this picture. First off--the pictures have no date-stamp indication. So don't try your hezbollah tricks on me; your internal validity is suspect. Second--what is the poster (i.e., a fellow faculty member) trying to say? Well, that's not hard to deduce: that the dogs of white owners received better treatment than people of color. Stated differently, the mass'ahs dogs get better care and treatment than the forgotten ex-slaves. And that is antithetical to what is morally right.

Please allow me to offer an alternative account. In the military, there are self-deploying assets. Problems in Kosavo? No worries, Clinton can tell a B-2 bomber crew to fly from Kansas to Kosovo and back, dropping targeted bombs in the process. The plane can self-deploy to nearly anywhere in the world. Similarly, humans are self-deploying assets. They have the God-given sense of self-sustainment, organization, and mobility--regardless of skin pigmentation. "Lower" animals, such as pets, may not have this cognitive luxury.

Having lived through a number of hurricanes myself, and some that were epic in severity, self-reliance is expected. First and foremost, people prepare for natural disasters, and they take care of themselves and their immediate families. They then venture outside and organize with neighbors for community repair efforts. The Micro gains momentum into the Macro. In no hurricane in which I experienced did I stop everything and think about black people across town that may not have prepared themselves, organized themselves, or subsequently help themselves and their neighborhoods. Sorry. I guess that makes me a bad and racist person. Come to think of it, my wife did volunteer with PAWS--so she's a part of the problem too.

Yet, the PhD poster may think that the disparity or perceived inequity is somehow a reflection on (white) society. That indefinable words like "racism" and "discrimination" continue to have painfully negative effects on the black culture. I have an alternate explanation. White people, from a white neighborhood, saw a problem and executed a successful rescue strategy relative to their local issue. (They probably assumed that others were doing the same in their localities.) In reality, other people apparently lacked the preparation, organization, and successful implementation to do so for themselves.

So I ask--who is the racist? Me--wondering why it's the white man's responsibility to ensure that minorities are evacuated? Or is it the disgruntled minority who seems to deductively presume that those within their own minority are ultimately incapable of basic skills. What's wrong with this picture is the perpetuation of the myth suggesting that certain people or racial groups are incapable of preparing, organizing and executing successful self-sustainence sans (government) aid.

Racism is formally defined as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. I believe that everyone is capable of self-reliance. I also have a sister of color and I sang in a black gospel choir; ipso facto, I am not racist. Based on this definition, the one that is racist is the one that limits a race based on a prejudice. In this case, I suggest that it is the poster, and not whitie.

Helpful Resources ...

Hey Matt. Over the last few months, I have noticed that a number of your posts concern your school and, if I may be so bold, the "liberal" politics that appear to flavor its atmosphere. While I definitely admire you for being thoughtful enough to truly consider this issue, you made a few statements that really gave me pause to think.

Just like any other sexual behavior outside a marriage between a man and a woman, homosexual relationships do not glorify God, and should not be condoned or encouraged.

I completely agree with this statement. As Greg pointed out in his post, I think the Biblical evidence is fairly clear.

While people choose their behaviors, they do not choose their sexual orientation.

This is where I think the liberal media has really influenced the discussion. There is a common beleif among many today that homosexual orientation is related to what Time Magazine referred to as the "Gay Gene." The media has been so persistent and has spoken with so much presumed authority, that their agenda has largely been successful. Today, many, many Americans(including many within the church) believe in the existance of the "Gay Gene."

While I am no expert on the subject, I do have a very strong interest in the matter because like you, I have been close friends with someone who really struggled with this. In fact, you may recall that my friend actually committed suicide over the issue. I say that not to load the discussion. I am well past the grief that I experienced over his loss, and I am fairly capable of having a level-headed conversation on the subject. My point in telling you this is that I am not an unsympathetic evangelical. I have personally encountered many gay men and women, and I strongly believe that God has a vested interest in them.

What I would like to recommend to you is two books. The first is written by Robert Gagnon, and it is widely respected by both sides of the aisle. In fact, some argue that this may be the authoritative text on the issue today. I don't believe that to be the case, because I am partial to the second text, which is written by Jeffrey Satinover. Although his book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, is far more comprehensive, his article entitled "The Gay Gene" may be an excellent jumping off point for a study into this subject. I will leave you to read the article on your own, but in short, Satinover makes a very, very strong case that the evidence for the "gay gene" is so weak that if it were related to the issue of cancer, it would not even be pursued as a viable line of research. Take a look for yourself and tell me what you think.

God loves homosexuals.

Do I believe that God loves everyone? Yes. But love is not the defining characteristic of God. In fact, most great heresies begin when a certain attribute of God is elevated above other attributes that constitute His Person. God is also a God of justice. And so while it is accurate to say that God loves homosexuals, it is equally accurate to say that God has a just interest in the behavior of homosexuals.

So where am I going with this? Two places really. First, there is the issue of sinners. Thoughtout Scripture, those that are not living by faith (OT and NT) are regularly described as the enemies of God. Furthermore, from an eschatological perspective, those that are sinners and are not covered by the grace of Christ will ulimately be separated from the love of God. So love cannot be elevated over and above other factors that surround this issue.

As best as I can tell, God lovingly gives us about 70 years to decide whether or not we want to respond to His love. At the end of that time, we stand before the Judgment Seat and answer for our lives. If we have accepted the loving sacrifice of Christ, we are above condemnation because God sees us through the lens of Christ. On the flip side, if we have rejected His loving sacrifice, we are removed from the sphere of His love and are placed under eternal judgment. So the love does appear to be conditioned or predicated upon our response to His offer. It is not a blanket that covers one and all.

Secondly, as you might guess from my comments on the evidence for the existance of a "gay gene," I am concerned by your usage of language. You suggested that God loves homosexuals. By doing so, you imply that homosexuality is at the core of one's identity and is in some way inseparable from an individual's personhood. As I do not believe that homosexuality is genetically determined (although there may be a genetic correlation - huge difference there!), I cannot accept the statement: "God loves homosexuals." What I believe is that God has lovingly extended an offer to all people, including those that practice the sin of homosexuality.

Does that make sense? I really hope it does because I think this issue really matters for the church. It matters with regards to how we treat other people, and it matters with regards to what we say to them. So please, think about what I have said, read the Satinover article (and hopefully the book when you get time) and share your thoughts. I'd love to hear more.

Hey Matt--Nice flowers. A great addition to National Coming Out Day. But in all seriousness, I've flip-flopped a little on the subject as well. If I'm not mistaken, there is little Biblical confusion on the subject.

Leviticus 20:13. If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

And if one believes in the grace afforded to us by His sacrifice, then this may apply:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Interestingly, it seems that gayness is lumped together with other sin and sexual perversions. So grace did afford the gays not to be put-to-death.

So in all honesty, I see gayness as any other sexual perversion. Our bodies are corrupt, and our neural development and drives perverted. So just as some may have a propensity toward sin in Area A, others may have a propensity for sin in Area B. But as Duane once told us at French house, being predisposed to sin is not an excuse for action; because it takes a lifetime of choices to get oneself in the position of active gayness. At the time, I didn't understand quite what he meant; but I think I do now. All those guys on NBC's To Catch a Predator may have been lured and egged on by the people at perverted justice--so much so that I wonder if it would qualify as entrapment--but the ultimate reality is that the men put themselves in that environment in the first place. And thus their guilt.

In many senses, we're really not all that different from other "lower" animals. And active gayness, just like any other form of active sexuality, is nothing more than pressing a button that fulfills some type of neural drive that has been perverted by the fall. Like a monkey compulsively pressing a button or a penguin obsessed with a rookery. God must get pretty frustrated with that...

But Matt--the both of us are in different flavors of academia; and both of us have to deal with the subsequent moral relativism of a field that believes they are smarter than God. I largely dealt with this problem by moving as far into the Bible belt as possible; yeah--that's right, I wimped out. I honestly don't know how it could be (or should be) dealt with in a situation such as yours. The conspiracy of silence which may be (functional) tacit approval; the strong dedication to a belief that only comes out of its cage on rare occaisions; or the Bible-thumping teacher that quickly loses his job? I honestly don't know the answer to that one.

Happy National Coming Out Day, everyone!

What? You didn't know today was National Coming Out Day? or that October is GLBT History Month?

Well, neither did I, until about an hour ago, when the whole school was treated to a presentation by its Gay-Straight Alliance group. It was uncomfortable.

Honestly, just looking at what I just wrote, I really don't like the snarky attitude that comes across. This is an issue that, the more I think about it, the less sure I become about my beliefs. Actually, that's not entirely accurate; there are a few things that I just can't NOT believe, but believing them all at the same time is a challenge:

• God loves homosexuals (contrary to what that great philosopher of our times Fred Phelps says).


• Just like any other sexual behavior outside a marriage between a man and a woman, homosexual relationships do not glorify God, and should not be condoned or encouraged.


• While people choose their behaviors, they do not choose their sexual orientation.

So I struggle with fitting these pieces together. It's not easy for me. But I still don't feel like this honest struggle I have would get any respect around here. Maybe I'm wrong. But in any case, it does make me uncomfortable (in a setting that I otherwise am really enjoying).

EDIT: Great, I try to be serious, and our template turns my bullet points into flowers.

So essentially--my posts (and thus my life) are there for Scott's amusement?
...more to come...

Don't feel bad Scott. I bet I've got more time on my hands than you do and still post less. The whole go to work and go to school at the same time thing is crazy. What I should be doing right now is writing my second assignment for my networking class. You can see how well that is working out for me. While many things have changed since college, my ability to put things off to the last minute is a constant. :)
So there are 25 countries in the EU...have you taken a poll to see how many Americans know that? I guess the first poll would be: can you name all 50 states (assuming everyone knows we still only have 50 states....) That's right, Cuba doesn't count, and New Mexico does people. I have nothing interesting to say so I guess I'll get back to work. Don't forget to hug your Chumby.

I actually found this comforting. At least we're not the only ones that are failing relative to our children's education. I may post more, if time and mental focus allow... (One of those "off" days...)

The Joys and Trials of Two ...

So I have to say, now that we are four weeks into this two-kid thing, it's a lot tougher than you would expect. In addition to the lost sleep, you have to contend with a two-and-a-half year old that is regressing in his behaviors. This has the spiraling-downward effect of pushing my wife's buttons, which in turn heightens my son's behavioral issues because she is short with him. Add to this the fact that I am dealing with a very unfortunate exam issue while also trying to pull together one of two major fundraisers that we do each year and you will start to get an idea of our life at the moment.

Of course, I do not tell you this in the hopes that you would feel sorry for me. There is nothing to feel sorry for. I am very conscious of the fact that I am blessed as a husband and a father, and I am very conscious of the fact that this is a season. My only purpose in telling you this is to let you know that I have not lost interest in talking with you regularly. In fact, I check the Hobo almost every single day. I just haven't had the energy to post anything significant.

She hasn't really looked into it all that much, but what she does know about it does have the ring of pseudoscience to her. However, she was a little surprised when a brief internet search last night showed that it has been "approved" or "endorsed" by some reputable psychological associations. So I'd say she's an agnostic on the topic for now. She'll need to see a good amount of solid, hard data showing it to be effective.

There's a guy at our church who studies/practices it. He asked Michelle's opinion on it once, and I think she effectively avoided dismissing it outright.

(If any of this needs correction or amendment, I'm sure it will appear in the comments. :-)

Hey Matt--can you ask your life partner about her take on EMDR? Include the buzz-word "pseudoscientific" somehow, and see what happens. I just want to know if there's a shred of merit in there somewhere...

News from the "Homefront"

Hey guys. I tried to call you yesterday from the football game at Wheaton. As Sarah is from the same class as all three of you, it was her ten year reunion as well.

Anyway, it was quite a trip to return in that context. All the students kept looking at you as if you were aliens from a distant future that might or might not include them. In fact, some of them looked downright nervous, like they weren't certain that they could ever handle being in their 30s.

The Beamer Center is ... well, it's really nice. But at the same time, it's a bit too nice. It's like a giant Starbucks -- all cautious tans and deep wood stains. Tasteful, yet unspired photographs on the wall. All in all, a great place to recruit future students, but I can't see current students using it all that much.

As for those who came back, it seems pointless to say too much because I have no idea who you knew.

All this to say: I missed you. I realize that funding and time was working against us, but it would have been nice to see you again.

Game Day.

You know, it's hard to describe the town in which we live. With all the negative stereotypes of the region, which people like Matt apparently continue to believe, I have yet to confirm or experience them. The only two questionable experiences that I've witnessed was:

(1) Our claw-foot-tub-refinisher had a (subtle) picture of Nathan Bedford Forrest in his office, and (2) There's a restaurant in town that was established in the mid 19th century; it has a plaque referring to it as one of the first "white" establishments in the area. (The "whiteness" was to delineate it from the native savages that lived in the area before the "white" man.)

And it very well could be that the town in which we live is an isolated pocket of "progression"; as many a person has essentially described it as the "jewel" of the state. The culture here is best described as old south, which is clearly different from southern. There is still quite a bit of pride in the warmth of people, elegance, nobility, traditional, and overall distinguished environment... that's the best way that I can describe it. The posted pic is a snapshot of The Grove (during the 3rd quarter), which is a 12-acre lawn/wooded area in the center of campus. On game days, it becomes a veritable sea of tents--many equipped with satellites, TV's, music, elaborate food spreads, and even chandeliers. You really can't come to such an event over-dressed; it is simply the social event of the weekend. The grove, without question, supersedes the sporting event itself. I wish I could share it with you guys...

I don't know about you guys--but this is exceedingly hard for me to read.

As an aside, being a college prof is perhaps one of the most cush jobs known to man. The pay isn't great, but it's liveable. You can opt to have summers off, with ample vacation time inbetween.

But one of the negatives, at least in this stage of my career, is the transient nature of those around you. I left my former U after 2 years--which was planned. (You can't leave after the first--as you'll look like a loser. You can't leave after the 3rd, as it looks like you're un-tenure-able. One leaves after the second.) So I've made pretty good friends with a guy in which I came--and tonight he told me his plans to leave after the spring. And I saw it coming--but when you're the only guy in a dept. full of woman...it's nice to have an out-of-the-dept guy friend in which to drink, watch sports, and shoot the bull. Bummer. But the move is a good one for him. Vaya con Dios.

I honestly wish there were term limits. Being a politician just shouldn’t be a career; once it becomes that way, the looming threat of re-election totally screws up everything. It becomes a race of pandering, rather than doing what may be right.

I like the idea of term limits too, but wouldn't you get a similar problem? Once someone's elected, why should they bother trying all that hard to please their constituents (by accurately representing them)? I mean, they'd have to really screw up to be "fired" before their term was up. Actually, I guess we'd have to get specific about what those "limits" might be; I think I'm assuming it'd be a single term, when that's probably not the case.

So... never mind.

In other news, here's what passes for free speech on college campuses these days. I mean, this is honestly scary. So much for tolerance.

Oh Matt… there’s no half-joking about it. I honestly think it’s a full-on reality. Look at some of the stuff that Howard Dean has said. (There’s literally too much for me to recount; I just don’t have the time.) Further—look at Kerry… (Can I get me a hunting license here?) The disconnect between politicians and their constituents is just astounding—on both sides of the isle. I honestly wish there were term limits. Being a politician just shouldn’t be a career; once it becomes that way, the looming threat of re-election totally screws up everything. It becomes a race of pandering, rather than doing what may be right.

The thing is—I know I may come off as some kind of typical neo-con… but it may be better described as an all-around frustration at a democratic system that is fatally flawed and will ultimately break. And the single biggest and most pervasive underlying fault for said breakdown is the relativism of ethics and morality. But we’ve been there, done that.

Secondly—I may have offended 100% of our female readership the other day. So please let me take this opportunity to say that I love the ladies! (And the ladies from your home town are the best! Am I right?) (Ok—that was an obscure Kids in the Hall reference.) I would also like to take this opportunity to point out the obvious. Michelle speaks academic. :) Matt—tell me if the words “internal validity” and “external validity” make it into any Enlow family “discussions.” (Not that I’m looking into the mirror or anything; clearly, nothing of the sort has ever erupted from my lips…)

But as far as racism… I’m honestly not buyin’. Sorry. Prejudcie—I get. Prejudice isn’t a bad thing. It’s what keeps us alive. That milk smells bad—I’m not drinking it. A benefit of pre-judging. That arab looks a bit jittery; let’s put him through extra screening. I’m ok with that. Unfounded prejudice is another thing entirely. And when it all comes down to it, it’s a facet of life and reality in which we all must deal. I just wish our culture would shut up about it.

But what’s racism? What exactly is racism? How is it defined? Am I a “racist” when I asked a (black) mother to turn down her amplified speaker so I could talk to another parent in the observation room? (The black mother certainly seemed to think so…) Am I racist when it annoys me that there are different standards for students relative to special boxes on an application? What about a po-dunk private-entity family “church” that approves segregation? While dumb, how is that act (in and of itself) specifically “racist”? Are people not allowed a certain amount of freedom within the confines of their own property? I don’t oppress people, and I really don’t see any other legitimate oppression out there—at least within the U.S. We’re at the point were people are oppressing themselves by believing the lies in which they are fed. That’s not oppression; that’s pseudo-oppression. So if there’s no real oppression, then where’s all this racism (in its truest form—whatever that may be)?

I guess what I’m getting at is this: As long as there is opportunity for all, then how can the concept of racism exist? Despite the liberal agenda, there is no “equal” (in terms of opportunity or outcome), and life is generally unfair. Suck it up and deal with that. As such, the concept of “racism” seems to be invoked as a methodology to keep this myth of entitled equality alive. And despite our best efforts, such a utopia will never occur.

Greg: I'm only half-joking when I say that it sounds like they're trying to win conservatives to their side (since a majority of liberals are probably already there), and they're so ignorant about how to appeal to them that they just figure, "eh, they're all a bunch of racist xenophobes, let's tell 'em how 'the furriners' are coming to get them, that oughta scare 'em away", etc.

Oh, and if you could talk a little more about what you mean by defining racism "operationally", I might give it a shot.

I nearly peed in my pants when I read this quote...

Convenience-store alcohol isn't about convenience.
It's about large, foreign-owned convenience stores...

Think about it... The liberal weenie that seems to believe that the human consumer has no responsibility relative to "the safety of our families, friends, and community" is essentially saying that the asians or indians shouldn't be allowed to sell alcohol in their 7-11 franchises! Smells a bit of the dreaded "r" word to me--based on how their past operational definitions...

And speaking of which--I'm still waiting for someone to operationally define "racism" for me. Because I've tried--and I still can't do it.

Speaking of people from foreign nationalities and religions, of which nothing derogatory can be spoken, the C.A.I.R. juggernaut simply will not stop. And I gotta be honest--I'm glad I live where I do, so I don't have to deal with it.

I like to complain about how technology is taking over our society. Then when something breaks, I complain about that. Or, conversely, when technology's cool, I exult over it.

Anyway, so I'm watching TV last night (I know, shocker), and I see an ad appear. Like about 99% of political ads, I could smell something funny with this one. Michelle and I talked about it, and we (by which I mean she) came up with about 6 or 7 alternative explanations for their statistic.

Anyway, the fact that I could, within seconds, hop online and find the ad I just watched on TV is one amazing thing. The next is that the ceiling-mounted projector in my classroom will allow me to play the ad for my Geometry class this morning. Less than 24 hours later. (Why Geometry? I started the course with two weeks of Logic, including "bad" logic (fallacies), so I just want to give them a current prime example of the "logic" behind political ads.) I mean... remember when the thought of being able to do something like that was inconceivable?

So yeah, technology's bad, mmkay... except when it helps me.

P.S. - For those interested in the issue (in a state in which you don't live), the opposing sides' respective websites are here and here.

is there any chance that you’re misreading my frustration?

In general I'd say it's more likely than not. :-)

My brain kind of condensed your post into, "Church A is a 'no' because of X. Church B is a 'no' because of Y. Church C is a 'no' because of Z. Maybe I could just listen to sermons on my iPod instead." Reading back over it, you never really made that last connection.

I feel your pain, though. The prospect of "church-hunting" was not one I looked forward to—even with Michelle. But we did get lucky, I think, with Newton Pres. We just started attending the Sunday School—sorry, "Adult Formation"—classes, and I for one have been pleasantly surprised by the "calibre" of the discourse. Michelle enjoyed it too—said she felt she'd been missing such intellectual stimulation (of the Christian variety) for a while.

Anyway, sorry for my misreading, didn't mean to imply those things. I was talking to myself as much as anyone with that post.

Hey Matt, is there any chance that you’re misreading my frustration? I’m not suggesting that the traditional church be dumped; instead, I was just voicing my frustration in finding a church in which I feel comfortable (i.e., one in which I would actively want to go). Now that we have a daughter, attending a brick-and-mortar church isn’t really optional; I was just hoping to get something out of the process.

I think it’s a safe assumption that we, as Wheaton graduates, are a more sophisticated bunch. (And it could also be that we’re inherently that way, regardless of Wheaton.) My ideal would be to attend a church that was alive, and with messages that actually challenged me cognitively and spiritually—as that is how I worship. And if you can’t challenge me to think, then please provide the same content from a perspective in which I may not have previously considered. (Which is what my ex-church in NoVa could provide for me.) And it’s been my hypothesis that the sophistication of the church leadership is directly correlated to the (over-used-word-of-the-day) sophistication and general spiritual quality of the church members.

So this is a small town, and while there’s (literally) almost a church on every corner, there are a finite amount of corners. The first in which we’ve recently attended had a dysfunctional child’s program that resulted in a newly acquired fear of strangers within my daughter. Their message was also lackluster and wholly unchallenging. The next church in which we attended had a message that, despite my best attempts, could not follow. It literally had no point, and was a message for one (i.e., the speaker); at least the child’s program didn’t abuse my baby. So that’s an option.

The most recent Episcopal offering had the liturgy, which I actually enjoyed. It also had the pseudo-Christian-relativism that seems to plague much of the Episcopal denomination. The head pastor flat-out and bluntly said (in his unchallenging 3 minute message) that the Bible wasn’t to be taken literally, and that it’s more of a supplement to living in love and peace. So that’s not an option.

So I’m frustrated. I’m not saying that I’m above other people, better than other people, that I don’t have to connect with other believers. I don’t even mind meeting new people, stuttering and all. I’m just saying that I’m frustrated, because we’re getting down to the bottom of the barrel. There’s only 3 more (major) churches in the immediate area that have an established kids program; if none can be found that provides any kind of mental stimulation, then we’ll pick the best program for Ella, and I’ll be bored to tears.

And I don’t want to be bored to tears; I actually cherish the idea of being challenged both spiritually and cognitively by an active, dynamic, and “live” feeling local church.

< / whine>

P.S. No comments on the “all that piss” distillation?