Re: Concerning Edmund's sin/betrayal.
I think that Edmund chose a lesser good over a greater good. In some way he called good evil, but in another way he simply exaggerated an evil within his siblings, especially Peter, and made them seem worse while at the same time diminishing his own evil (and ignoring it). He had a grudge against Peter. He was already out of sorts because of needing to leave his family. In the movie he rushed back into the house to get his father's picture. He was feeling abandoned. These feelings of being abandoned (father at war, mother sending them away) were legitimate. George MacDonald might call these things "lawful excuses". Perhaps. So much in Edmund's favor.
What isn't excuseable is his tormenting Lucy, and denying Lucy (as one could say "isolating her") once he realizes that she is correct, and enters Narnia.
The question for me is: When does Edmund effectively "fall" in the story? Is it when he belittles Lucy before he enters Narnia? Is it when he "falls" for the Witch's temptation, just listening to her, not trusting his conscience or the inner voice that was warning him? Turkish Delight in itself is not evil, or immoral, but it becomes evil or an avenue for evil when it is chosen over conscience and caution. He is seduced by pleasure. He eats and eats: his gluttony is an outward and visible sign of a growing inward and hidden depravity. The White Witch tempts further by letting him believe (but does he REALLY BELIEVE, or does he once again lie to himself?) that he would become her prince, and eventually rule?
What is ironic, is that he truly was destined to rule Narnia, but the ORDER was completely essential. The order he imagined (or that the witch offered) was to rule through her and have his siblings serve him. The Lie: He wasn't to serve anyone. The ORDER established by the prophesy and Aslan was for him to rule through ASLAN, and to be subservient to the High King, Peter. His rule was meant to be one of obedience to the True King, and the High King, and one of service.
In this way, a good (his destiny to be king) was twisted to become an evil (his imagined rule over his siblings through the White Witch). It is interesting how this theme comes up again in the Silver Chair when Rilian becomes ensnared by the Emerald Witch/Serpent and almosts invades Narnia on the Emerald Witch's behalf. He would have ruled Narnia (his rightful dominion) yet under false pretenses. His rightful rule would have be replaced by a wrongful rule. In essence, had he not be freed from the magic spell, he would have usurped his own throne.....
Friday, December 23, 2005
Monday, December 19, 2005
Christmas
I think ever since I was young I have felt a tension during the holiday season. Now it's in vogue to even complain about using the word "holiday" instead of "Christmas" when referrring to this season. Many evangelicals decry the secularization of just about everything within the public sector. It concerns me, too. But sometimes evangelicals just want to cling to forms or words without embodying substance.
The problem within our culture runs very deep. It's not just a split between the secular culture and its icons and the Christian culture and its icons. The secular culture promotes: Santa (usurped from the original Christian culture, for Santa used to be Saint Nicholas, a fourth century saint known for his generosity); reindeer; large, fat snowmen; snowflakes and stars; the colors green and red. The Christian culture remembers the manger scene: idealized with manger, and infant Lord who doesn't cry, well-robed wise men and humble shepherds, feminine angels with wings, halos and white robes. But behind the familiar scenes, issues, icons and stereotypes reigns the Living God moving through history, creating, restoring, redeeming, and transforming.
Is there a reason to fret? Obviously the lure of consumerism, and the Call of the Mall entices us to become jaded and cynical about the season. But after a few decades of the same old complaints, I've just let go. I don't bother with complaining, or giving in to it all. I just ignore it. Or at least I ignore it most of the time.
The problem within our culture runs very deep. It's not just a split between the secular culture and its icons and the Christian culture and its icons. The secular culture promotes: Santa (usurped from the original Christian culture, for Santa used to be Saint Nicholas, a fourth century saint known for his generosity); reindeer; large, fat snowmen; snowflakes and stars; the colors green and red. The Christian culture remembers the manger scene: idealized with manger, and infant Lord who doesn't cry, well-robed wise men and humble shepherds, feminine angels with wings, halos and white robes. But behind the familiar scenes, issues, icons and stereotypes reigns the Living God moving through history, creating, restoring, redeeming, and transforming.
Is there a reason to fret? Obviously the lure of consumerism, and the Call of the Mall entices us to become jaded and cynical about the season. But after a few decades of the same old complaints, I've just let go. I don't bother with complaining, or giving in to it all. I just ignore it. Or at least I ignore it most of the time.
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Discussion vs. Dialogue in the Intelligent Design/Evolution debate
Recently my brothers and I had a most interesting and thoughtful exchange of e-mail posts on my previous post: Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. I came out supporting a modified intelligent design position, and they favored evolutionary positions that do not preclude or exclude their Christian beliefs. One of the things I came away with is the desire to make sure that everyone does their best to be understood fully, and to fully understand the position of others. Too often rhetoric and innuendo is employed to manipulate conversations or discussions in your favor, casting one's "opponent" in a disparaging light, not because one is seeking truth, but because one is trying to "win". I have been fortunate to come from a family that doesn't see the blessing or advantage for anyone to "win" at the expense of the other.
This past summer while attending a Science Inquiry conference sponsored by the Oregon Science Teachers Association, I was intrigued by the differentiation between the concepts of discussion and dialogue. Discussion has similar roots with the words percussion and concussion. They all have to do with hitting something. In concussion you get hit in the head, percussion you hit an instrument to generate sound. In discussion, you hit others with your ideas. The attitude in a discussion is to argue about ideas. One seeks to win the argument, put forward the best offense, catch your opponent in the weakness of their ideas, and drive your point home. The problem is, if you're concerned with having the best offense, you really end up being offensive.
A dialogue, however, is only possible when true relationships are upheld as the best means to finding truth. Truth in one's ideas is only possible if it arises out of the relationship of mutual respect, and trust in each other's integrity. In reality, then, one can't have a dialogue with just anyone. Dialogue commences when both people, or all those involved, desire to build the relationship between them MORE than convincing the other person of their rightness or correctness. The search for intellectual truth or the trueness of one's ideas arises out of the justice and fairness of one's relationship with others, the trueness or truth of one's being for others, for even the person one's "argument" is against.
Now in the dialogue that we had about Evolution and Intelligent Design, I found that we actually were very close in agreement at least 90% of the time. I still would like a more open acceptance of the Intelligent Design thoughts and positions to be discussed in upper division classes, if not at the high school level, then surely at the college level when Evolution is taught. I also felt that there can be and should be a distinction made between Evolution (capital E) and evolution (small e). Evolution (capital E), in my mind, refers to the whole-sale acceptance of Naturalism (or Scientific Naturalism, as my brother proposed) that maintains the randomness, and complete unguided or non-theistic nature of Nature: It is the Whole Show, and God neither exists nor creates. Evolution (small e), on the other hand, is the description and accompanying theory of gradual change over time that allows for direction and purpose and creation by God, although for scientific purposes (not religious purposes) God is not "figured into the equation" as a quantifiable or identifiable entity or director. Science, being limited by empiricism, does not try to prove or disprove God. It can do neither, and desires to do neither. It's purpose is to articulate natural laws, not define, reveal or encapsulate the Legislator of those natural laws. It is for those reasons that many Christians who believe in the Creation of the Earth, still uphold the theory of evolution (small e) without being hard-core atheistic Evolutionists or Naturalists (likewise a capital N). These distinctions are my own, and if they are helpful in the ongoing debate/dialogue, so be it. That is my intention.
This past summer while attending a Science Inquiry conference sponsored by the Oregon Science Teachers Association, I was intrigued by the differentiation between the concepts of discussion and dialogue. Discussion has similar roots with the words percussion and concussion. They all have to do with hitting something. In concussion you get hit in the head, percussion you hit an instrument to generate sound. In discussion, you hit others with your ideas. The attitude in a discussion is to argue about ideas. One seeks to win the argument, put forward the best offense, catch your opponent in the weakness of their ideas, and drive your point home. The problem is, if you're concerned with having the best offense, you really end up being offensive.
A dialogue, however, is only possible when true relationships are upheld as the best means to finding truth. Truth in one's ideas is only possible if it arises out of the relationship of mutual respect, and trust in each other's integrity. In reality, then, one can't have a dialogue with just anyone. Dialogue commences when both people, or all those involved, desire to build the relationship between them MORE than convincing the other person of their rightness or correctness. The search for intellectual truth or the trueness of one's ideas arises out of the justice and fairness of one's relationship with others, the trueness or truth of one's being for others, for even the person one's "argument" is against.
Now in the dialogue that we had about Evolution and Intelligent Design, I found that we actually were very close in agreement at least 90% of the time. I still would like a more open acceptance of the Intelligent Design thoughts and positions to be discussed in upper division classes, if not at the high school level, then surely at the college level when Evolution is taught. I also felt that there can be and should be a distinction made between Evolution (capital E) and evolution (small e). Evolution (capital E), in my mind, refers to the whole-sale acceptance of Naturalism (or Scientific Naturalism, as my brother proposed) that maintains the randomness, and complete unguided or non-theistic nature of Nature: It is the Whole Show, and God neither exists nor creates. Evolution (small e), on the other hand, is the description and accompanying theory of gradual change over time that allows for direction and purpose and creation by God, although for scientific purposes (not religious purposes) God is not "figured into the equation" as a quantifiable or identifiable entity or director. Science, being limited by empiricism, does not try to prove or disprove God. It can do neither, and desires to do neither. It's purpose is to articulate natural laws, not define, reveal or encapsulate the Legislator of those natural laws. It is for those reasons that many Christians who believe in the Creation of the Earth, still uphold the theory of evolution (small e) without being hard-core atheistic Evolutionists or Naturalists (likewise a capital N). These distinctions are my own, and if they are helpful in the ongoing debate/dialogue, so be it. That is my intention.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism: Evolution or Intelligent Design?
This is the almost the same article/post as one posted on my other blog: Javascripture.
Not long ago a couple events coincided within the span of one week: an article on Naturalism and Intelligent Design written by my brother (a pastor) in his church’s newsletter, and a challenge from a fellow small group member who is working on an article on what it means to be made in the image of God. Perhaps to some people the issues seem unrelated, but I think they are related. An excerpt from Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Creation and Fall, as well as a few excerpts from C. S. Lewis’s Miracles have formed some of my thinking, as well as a sincere desire to address the ongoing debate within public schools whether to allow Intelligent Design theories to be taught within our Science classes. I hope this hasn’t scared you away, as a reader. Perhaps you’re wondering which camp I’ll land myself in. I hope that is enough to keep you interested.
The first couple chapters of Genesis are considered the Creation chapters. In much abbreviated language the Creation of the Earth is depicted, along with the especial Creation of humanity as residents of Earth. Some people might hope I would say figurative or metaphorical language instead of abbreviated, but I don’t think those words would be accurate. A metaphor is figurative language that compares two quite different things by mentioning one particular quality they both appear to possess. To say: “Zach is a cheetah on the track” would be to use a metaphor indicating Zach is a fast runner, not to imply he’s a great cat. However to say that “God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind’ and it was so.” (Genesis 1:24) is not to use a metaphor. It is to say, however, that these creatures: namely the entire Animal Kingdom (and all subsequent phyla, genera and species), were created intentionally and specifically by someone outside of Nature. I say that the Genesis narrative uses abbreviated language because it doesn’t intend to be scientific in the least. Indeed the order of events is highly suspect as well. The creation of plants (on day three) could hardly have preceded the creation of planets (on day four) as well as another particularly important celestial sphere, the sun, in so far as we are knowledgeable that plants manufacture their own food through photosynthesis, a process entirely dependent on light: particularly sunlight. Immediately the reader might surmise that I am fully entrenching myself in the Naturalist/ evolutionary camp as I call into question the scientific soundness of the Genesis account. To which I would wholeheartedly assent that the Bible in no way purports to be a scientific manual. But I do not think it meant to be metaphorical here either. It was simply stating, in massively abbreviated form, that there was and continues to be an intelligent design behind Nature and the things that have come into being. To that I likewise wholeheartedly concur.
The Genesis account goes on to say that humanity is created in the image of God: Humanity is the Imago Dei. “Then God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (Genesis 1:27) Dietrich Bonhoeffer writes: “There is no transition here from somewhere or other, there is new creation. This has nothing to do with Darwinism: quite independently of this man remains the new, free, undetermined work of God. We have no wish at all to deny man’s connection with the animal world: on the contrary. But we are very anxious not to lose the peculiar relationship of man and God in the process.” (Creation and Fall, McMillan Co., 1959, p.36) The Genesis story tells about the purpose of humanity’s creation, not biologically how it came about. The Genesis passage speaks of humanity as being given originally a unique gift by God, unique among all the creatures. We are granted a relationship and responsibility “to rule” over the rest of creation, and we are created in His image. What that “image” is exactly, has been debated for years: our freedom of will, our ability to create, our ability to love sacrificially, our possessing a soul or spirit are among various interpretations, none that are exclusive of one another.
But not long after receiving this gift of creation and formation in His image, being God’s reflection, humanity decided to reject the gift and grab a position, a power, an ability. We said we will be like God “knowing good and evil.” This acquisition of knowledge was and continues to be a usurpation—a desire to be equal with God. It is a desire to wrest our future from the Creator so that we might establish an alternative based on our ambition. We act as if we are like God and act as if God does not exist, or is inconsequential at best. In some primordial past we became “sicut deus”: like God by our own power, lifting up the acquisition of knowledge, and judging between good and evil. Nonetheless, our original creation in the image of God was/is something unique among the created order, something that sets us apart and now, unfortunately, (through a primal estrangement called “the Fall”), at odds with the rest of the natural order.
The issue of “imago dei” (being created in the image of God) leads inevitably to the present controversy in our society between a creation-centered view of the Earth and a naturalist-evolutionary-based view of the Earth.
Within our schools and universities we have two competing world views currently embroiled in the science debate: intelligent design versus naturalism/evolution. Both of these viewpoints or positions of inquiry begin with certain presuppositions. The naturalist scientific community has denounced intelligent design as pseudo-science that is being used by fundamentalist Christians to push a literal interpretation of the Bible. The creationist supernaturalist scientific community has denounced evolution as a presumptuous, anti-religious theory rife with gaps in proof and logic that flies in the face of the facts that cry out evidence that there is order and design, balance and benefits, cooperation and complexity within Nature, on the Earth, throughout all living creatures. Such complexity, interdependence and balance cannot be adequately explained without the presence of a Creator Whose purposes aren’t simply random.
I will be frank in stating I find myself apparently with feet in both camps. Some might say my heart dwells in the Creation camp and my analytical mind in the Evolution camp. I could be denounced as a fence sitter. Biblical literalists might ask how I can believe dinosaurs lived 160 million years ago and uphold scientific theories dating the Earth’s age at over 3 billion years. You see, I’m not a Young Earth adherent. But at the same time I am a supernaturalist, not a naturalist. In other words I don’t believe that all that is in Nature (the evident world comprehended empirically through our five senses) came about by itself, randomly, haphazardly, accidentally, only by chance and through an interminably lucky process of natural selection.
A Naturalist believes that every finite thing or event must be explicable in terms of the Total System (which we call Nature.) In other words only Nature exists. Any cause happens from within the system. “The Naturalist believes that a great process, or ‘becoming,’ exists ‘on its own’ in space and time, and that nothing else exists… The Supernaturalist believes that one Thing (Being) exists on its own and has produced the framework of space and time and the procession of systematically connected events which fill them. This framework, and this filling, he calls Nature.” (C.S.Lewis, Miracles, p. 14). Now it may be argued that I have taken my thoughts completely away from Science and dove head first into Philosophy. This is true, but so have many scientists, because they cannot succeed in doing their work in a “vacuum.” To be an evolutionist, for example, is to be a philosopher, of sorts. One may find many separate fossils that show various bone structures, impressions of feathers or scales, and unwittingly—or very wittingly—desire to fill in the gaps with assumptions of mutations, gradual change and natural selection of the most efficient mutations, that most fortunately keep getting passed on to subsequent progeny. Finding and describing the fossils is science, while speculating and prescribing a necessarily blind, unguided chance randomness that links two separate fossils is philosophy, just as speculating and prescribing a necessarily intelligent design guided not by chance but by a purposeful Designer is philosophy. I would submit that the desire of scientists to exclude philosophical wrestling with the implications of fossil records diminishes scientific inquiry rather than purifies it.
Much of the reading I have done on Intelligent Design (particularly by Michael Behe) is not original research, but a description of multiple biological processes that must necessarily coincide in order for a function, such as vision, to occur. He calls this irreducible complexity. Although I don’t think these interpretations of scientific findings proves intelligent design in any definitive, undeniable way, yet I do affirm they are enough for me to nod my head in agreement: life remains a mystery, but there are enough fingerprints strewn across the Earth to point to the Culprit of Creation, Who dodges us, hides behind the Periodic Table and crouches within Relativity and Entropy.
Is Intelligent Design Science? It all depends on what individual scientists will allow into the dialogue. So long as scientists see inquiry as a linear, lock-step process of question, hypothesis, plan, observation and analysis, then perhaps no. But once scientists allow questions of purpose, as well as reflections on complexity, balance, and intuition, then perhaps the evolutionists won’t fear the proponents of intelligent design. It can not be denied that many scientists do believe in God, but do they believe in Creation? Do they believe that evolutionary processes may be an explanation for how an ageless God tweaks His Creation over time, much like an artist’s style my ‘evolve’ or change over time, simply because the artist desires to try something new. Conjecture? Most definitely, but it makes more sense to me than assuming every change is random and accidental simply because I’m not allowed to mention God.
For instance, how could an eye just blindly evolve? Evolutionists say that it started with photosensitive cells that mutated to primitive depressions in the head near the simultaneously evolving brain. From there successive mutations added increasingly beneficial components (while not having any other component lost through unfortunate mutations…) Consider, however, that is it possible for this to happen over countless millions of years, creatures holding onto the possibility that eyesight will eventually be achieved once some random cells mutate into the lens, and others mutate into the iris, the cornea, the vitreous humor, and the retina complete with rods and cones. All must coincide, exist at once, simultaneously for vision to occur. The evolutionists insist that successive stages of “improving vision” must have occurred as successive beings needed differing degrees of vision. But such reasoning is philosophy. It’s assuming that accidental mutations have left us with so many benefits, and every other mutation (those involving literally millions of dead-ends) must have all died off, without fossil records. Where are the fossil records of millions of botched mutations: those with a tenth of an eye, or those that made it a bit further with an eighth of an eye, or those lucky mutations that lasted 100 million years with a half an eye? And how did the eye evolve? How did the body ‘know’ that things could be perceived visually, that there are things out there worth seeing, in focus, and in color? To be bombarded with photons does not mean one will evolve eyes. Earthly creatures have been bombarded with cosmic rays, x-rays, infrared rays, radio waves and a broad assortment of electromagnetic radiation for just as long (say a billion years) and no cells have ever mutated to perceive these things. Such belief in the beneficence of the purely accidental and capricious takes a leap of faith that the theist has no trouble taking because the theist believes there is a Designer, a Creator, a God Who desires and intends vision for some of His creatures—especially all the moving ones that aren’t microscopic. In all of this I have only considered one organ. Imagine all the organs together, which must simultaneously work together: circulation system, neural system, lymphatic, skeletal, digestive systems, and so on. It is from these reflections that the theory of irreducible complexity arises. This doesn’t even begin to tackle the grand questions: How did life begin? How does it continue? How does the arrangement of four molecules in DNA lead to textures of skin, colors of hair, the heart that pumps, the bile that oozes, one’s ability to laugh, the tone of a singer, or the wrath of a despot?
Science in itself can be simply an intellectual discipline used to efficiently discover the way things work in the natural world. Obviously Science isn’t meant to discover the way things work in the supernatural world. Scientists, however, get into trouble when they disavow the supernatural world, and say that only the empirically perceived natural world exists, ala our five senses, then try to relegate to the natural world all cause and effect, building systems to explain how things work while implying they have figured out why things work. If evolution (as a theory of gradual change over time) can simply be used by scientists as a descriptive, heuristic device that outlines biological adaptations within species and genera, and how creatures are related to each other, then well and good. But once scientists begin imagining a planet (unique within the cosmos) in which this all necessarily happened by accident, and that ‘happy coincidences’ for the mega-trillionth time keep occurring that are not ever intended or designed by a Maker, leaving us with a most remarkable, but completely accidental Earth, then evolution ceases to be a descriptive theory and becomes a prescriptive theory. Naturalism takes the place of theism as a belief system that drives and prescribes knowledge, filling in all the blanks and gaps with assumptions that somehow continuing evolution weeded out all the bad mutations (called natural selection) and kept only the good mutations.
C. S. Lewis wrote: “No, it is not Christianity which need fear the giant universe. It is those systems which place the whole meaning of existence in biological or social evolution on our own planet. It is the creative evolutionist….who should tremble when he looks up at the night sky. For he really is committed to a sinking ship. He really is attempting to ignore the discovered nature of things, as though by concentrating on the possibly upward trend in a single planet he could make himself forget the inevitable downward trend in the universe as a whole, the trend to low temperatures and irrevocable disorganization. For entropy is the real cosmic wave, and evolution only a momentary tellurian ripple within it.” (God in the Dock, W.B.Eerdmans, 1970).
But that is enough for now. Just some random ramblings in the continuing dialogue? Or did I design them that way? Someone might quip, it doesn’t matter, they aren’t intelligent anyway. To which I smile, and reply, “Perhaps.”
Not long ago a couple events coincided within the span of one week: an article on Naturalism and Intelligent Design written by my brother (a pastor) in his church’s newsletter, and a challenge from a fellow small group member who is working on an article on what it means to be made in the image of God. Perhaps to some people the issues seem unrelated, but I think they are related. An excerpt from Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Creation and Fall, as well as a few excerpts from C. S. Lewis’s Miracles have formed some of my thinking, as well as a sincere desire to address the ongoing debate within public schools whether to allow Intelligent Design theories to be taught within our Science classes. I hope this hasn’t scared you away, as a reader. Perhaps you’re wondering which camp I’ll land myself in. I hope that is enough to keep you interested.
The first couple chapters of Genesis are considered the Creation chapters. In much abbreviated language the Creation of the Earth is depicted, along with the especial Creation of humanity as residents of Earth. Some people might hope I would say figurative or metaphorical language instead of abbreviated, but I don’t think those words would be accurate. A metaphor is figurative language that compares two quite different things by mentioning one particular quality they both appear to possess. To say: “Zach is a cheetah on the track” would be to use a metaphor indicating Zach is a fast runner, not to imply he’s a great cat. However to say that “God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind’ and it was so.” (Genesis 1:24) is not to use a metaphor. It is to say, however, that these creatures: namely the entire Animal Kingdom (and all subsequent phyla, genera and species), were created intentionally and specifically by someone outside of Nature. I say that the Genesis narrative uses abbreviated language because it doesn’t intend to be scientific in the least. Indeed the order of events is highly suspect as well. The creation of plants (on day three) could hardly have preceded the creation of planets (on day four) as well as another particularly important celestial sphere, the sun, in so far as we are knowledgeable that plants manufacture their own food through photosynthesis, a process entirely dependent on light: particularly sunlight. Immediately the reader might surmise that I am fully entrenching myself in the Naturalist/ evolutionary camp as I call into question the scientific soundness of the Genesis account. To which I would wholeheartedly assent that the Bible in no way purports to be a scientific manual. But I do not think it meant to be metaphorical here either. It was simply stating, in massively abbreviated form, that there was and continues to be an intelligent design behind Nature and the things that have come into being. To that I likewise wholeheartedly concur.
The Genesis account goes on to say that humanity is created in the image of God: Humanity is the Imago Dei. “Then God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (Genesis 1:27) Dietrich Bonhoeffer writes: “There is no transition here from somewhere or other, there is new creation. This has nothing to do with Darwinism: quite independently of this man remains the new, free, undetermined work of God. We have no wish at all to deny man’s connection with the animal world: on the contrary. But we are very anxious not to lose the peculiar relationship of man and God in the process.” (Creation and Fall, McMillan Co., 1959, p.36) The Genesis story tells about the purpose of humanity’s creation, not biologically how it came about. The Genesis passage speaks of humanity as being given originally a unique gift by God, unique among all the creatures. We are granted a relationship and responsibility “to rule” over the rest of creation, and we are created in His image. What that “image” is exactly, has been debated for years: our freedom of will, our ability to create, our ability to love sacrificially, our possessing a soul or spirit are among various interpretations, none that are exclusive of one another.
But not long after receiving this gift of creation and formation in His image, being God’s reflection, humanity decided to reject the gift and grab a position, a power, an ability. We said we will be like God “knowing good and evil.” This acquisition of knowledge was and continues to be a usurpation—a desire to be equal with God. It is a desire to wrest our future from the Creator so that we might establish an alternative based on our ambition. We act as if we are like God and act as if God does not exist, or is inconsequential at best. In some primordial past we became “sicut deus”: like God by our own power, lifting up the acquisition of knowledge, and judging between good and evil. Nonetheless, our original creation in the image of God was/is something unique among the created order, something that sets us apart and now, unfortunately, (through a primal estrangement called “the Fall”), at odds with the rest of the natural order.
The issue of “imago dei” (being created in the image of God) leads inevitably to the present controversy in our society between a creation-centered view of the Earth and a naturalist-evolutionary-based view of the Earth.
Within our schools and universities we have two competing world views currently embroiled in the science debate: intelligent design versus naturalism/evolution. Both of these viewpoints or positions of inquiry begin with certain presuppositions. The naturalist scientific community has denounced intelligent design as pseudo-science that is being used by fundamentalist Christians to push a literal interpretation of the Bible. The creationist supernaturalist scientific community has denounced evolution as a presumptuous, anti-religious theory rife with gaps in proof and logic that flies in the face of the facts that cry out evidence that there is order and design, balance and benefits, cooperation and complexity within Nature, on the Earth, throughout all living creatures. Such complexity, interdependence and balance cannot be adequately explained without the presence of a Creator Whose purposes aren’t simply random.
I will be frank in stating I find myself apparently with feet in both camps. Some might say my heart dwells in the Creation camp and my analytical mind in the Evolution camp. I could be denounced as a fence sitter. Biblical literalists might ask how I can believe dinosaurs lived 160 million years ago and uphold scientific theories dating the Earth’s age at over 3 billion years. You see, I’m not a Young Earth adherent. But at the same time I am a supernaturalist, not a naturalist. In other words I don’t believe that all that is in Nature (the evident world comprehended empirically through our five senses) came about by itself, randomly, haphazardly, accidentally, only by chance and through an interminably lucky process of natural selection.
A Naturalist believes that every finite thing or event must be explicable in terms of the Total System (which we call Nature.) In other words only Nature exists. Any cause happens from within the system. “The Naturalist believes that a great process, or ‘becoming,’ exists ‘on its own’ in space and time, and that nothing else exists… The Supernaturalist believes that one Thing (Being) exists on its own and has produced the framework of space and time and the procession of systematically connected events which fill them. This framework, and this filling, he calls Nature.” (C.S.Lewis, Miracles, p. 14). Now it may be argued that I have taken my thoughts completely away from Science and dove head first into Philosophy. This is true, but so have many scientists, because they cannot succeed in doing their work in a “vacuum.” To be an evolutionist, for example, is to be a philosopher, of sorts. One may find many separate fossils that show various bone structures, impressions of feathers or scales, and unwittingly—or very wittingly—desire to fill in the gaps with assumptions of mutations, gradual change and natural selection of the most efficient mutations, that most fortunately keep getting passed on to subsequent progeny. Finding and describing the fossils is science, while speculating and prescribing a necessarily blind, unguided chance randomness that links two separate fossils is philosophy, just as speculating and prescribing a necessarily intelligent design guided not by chance but by a purposeful Designer is philosophy. I would submit that the desire of scientists to exclude philosophical wrestling with the implications of fossil records diminishes scientific inquiry rather than purifies it.
Much of the reading I have done on Intelligent Design (particularly by Michael Behe) is not original research, but a description of multiple biological processes that must necessarily coincide in order for a function, such as vision, to occur. He calls this irreducible complexity. Although I don’t think these interpretations of scientific findings proves intelligent design in any definitive, undeniable way, yet I do affirm they are enough for me to nod my head in agreement: life remains a mystery, but there are enough fingerprints strewn across the Earth to point to the Culprit of Creation, Who dodges us, hides behind the Periodic Table and crouches within Relativity and Entropy.
Is Intelligent Design Science? It all depends on what individual scientists will allow into the dialogue. So long as scientists see inquiry as a linear, lock-step process of question, hypothesis, plan, observation and analysis, then perhaps no. But once scientists allow questions of purpose, as well as reflections on complexity, balance, and intuition, then perhaps the evolutionists won’t fear the proponents of intelligent design. It can not be denied that many scientists do believe in God, but do they believe in Creation? Do they believe that evolutionary processes may be an explanation for how an ageless God tweaks His Creation over time, much like an artist’s style my ‘evolve’ or change over time, simply because the artist desires to try something new. Conjecture? Most definitely, but it makes more sense to me than assuming every change is random and accidental simply because I’m not allowed to mention God.
For instance, how could an eye just blindly evolve? Evolutionists say that it started with photosensitive cells that mutated to primitive depressions in the head near the simultaneously evolving brain. From there successive mutations added increasingly beneficial components (while not having any other component lost through unfortunate mutations…) Consider, however, that is it possible for this to happen over countless millions of years, creatures holding onto the possibility that eyesight will eventually be achieved once some random cells mutate into the lens, and others mutate into the iris, the cornea, the vitreous humor, and the retina complete with rods and cones. All must coincide, exist at once, simultaneously for vision to occur. The evolutionists insist that successive stages of “improving vision” must have occurred as successive beings needed differing degrees of vision. But such reasoning is philosophy. It’s assuming that accidental mutations have left us with so many benefits, and every other mutation (those involving literally millions of dead-ends) must have all died off, without fossil records. Where are the fossil records of millions of botched mutations: those with a tenth of an eye, or those that made it a bit further with an eighth of an eye, or those lucky mutations that lasted 100 million years with a half an eye? And how did the eye evolve? How did the body ‘know’ that things could be perceived visually, that there are things out there worth seeing, in focus, and in color? To be bombarded with photons does not mean one will evolve eyes. Earthly creatures have been bombarded with cosmic rays, x-rays, infrared rays, radio waves and a broad assortment of electromagnetic radiation for just as long (say a billion years) and no cells have ever mutated to perceive these things. Such belief in the beneficence of the purely accidental and capricious takes a leap of faith that the theist has no trouble taking because the theist believes there is a Designer, a Creator, a God Who desires and intends vision for some of His creatures—especially all the moving ones that aren’t microscopic. In all of this I have only considered one organ. Imagine all the organs together, which must simultaneously work together: circulation system, neural system, lymphatic, skeletal, digestive systems, and so on. It is from these reflections that the theory of irreducible complexity arises. This doesn’t even begin to tackle the grand questions: How did life begin? How does it continue? How does the arrangement of four molecules in DNA lead to textures of skin, colors of hair, the heart that pumps, the bile that oozes, one’s ability to laugh, the tone of a singer, or the wrath of a despot?
Science in itself can be simply an intellectual discipline used to efficiently discover the way things work in the natural world. Obviously Science isn’t meant to discover the way things work in the supernatural world. Scientists, however, get into trouble when they disavow the supernatural world, and say that only the empirically perceived natural world exists, ala our five senses, then try to relegate to the natural world all cause and effect, building systems to explain how things work while implying they have figured out why things work. If evolution (as a theory of gradual change over time) can simply be used by scientists as a descriptive, heuristic device that outlines biological adaptations within species and genera, and how creatures are related to each other, then well and good. But once scientists begin imagining a planet (unique within the cosmos) in which this all necessarily happened by accident, and that ‘happy coincidences’ for the mega-trillionth time keep occurring that are not ever intended or designed by a Maker, leaving us with a most remarkable, but completely accidental Earth, then evolution ceases to be a descriptive theory and becomes a prescriptive theory. Naturalism takes the place of theism as a belief system that drives and prescribes knowledge, filling in all the blanks and gaps with assumptions that somehow continuing evolution weeded out all the bad mutations (called natural selection) and kept only the good mutations.
C. S. Lewis wrote: “No, it is not Christianity which need fear the giant universe. It is those systems which place the whole meaning of existence in biological or social evolution on our own planet. It is the creative evolutionist….who should tremble when he looks up at the night sky. For he really is committed to a sinking ship. He really is attempting to ignore the discovered nature of things, as though by concentrating on the possibly upward trend in a single planet he could make himself forget the inevitable downward trend in the universe as a whole, the trend to low temperatures and irrevocable disorganization. For entropy is the real cosmic wave, and evolution only a momentary tellurian ripple within it.” (God in the Dock, W.B.Eerdmans, 1970).
But that is enough for now. Just some random ramblings in the continuing dialogue? Or did I design them that way? Someone might quip, it doesn’t matter, they aren’t intelligent anyway. To which I smile, and reply, “Perhaps.”
Sunday, August 21, 2005
God's Politics
"Will values be used as wedges to further divide up or bridges to bring us together--to find common ground by moving to higher ground?" --God's Politics, Jim Wallis (Sojourners), p. xvii
As a Christian I recognize the Constitution's first 10 amendments as a secular insistence on rights while failing to list corresponding responsibilities. After having participated in a six week study through First Baptist church (McMinnville, OR.) that reflected on Jim Wallis's book, God's Politics, I have been questioning more deeply what is meant by Christian values, and family values. I fear most of us don't truly wrestle with understanding and arriving at firm values, based in an orthodox, historical Christian faith, that embraces the paradoxes of truth, and the inexorable demands of authentic, redemptive, consuming LOVE. Many American evangelicals simply spout a canned Republican line, and have let someone else do their thinking and theologizing. I like Jim Wallis's periodical assessment of much of current evangelical, right-wing thinking: its just bad theology.
So how does a good theology, a reflective, faithful, sacrificial theology work, that desires the redemption of the world, and takes seriously Jesus's actions, strategies and teachings? I have decided to reflect and theologize practically: Let me propose an example using an actual cherished American value: car ownership. Now some may object immediately, and say that car ownership is not a "value," but I would say that it is, because obviously since we spend so much of our time purchasing, servicing, fueling and driving our vehicles, we value them. We value what they look like, how we look in them, how others look at us and regard us when we are driving in them or parking them in our driveways for others to see. We are quite ready to pay whatever price it takes to keep them on the road. They are valuable to us, therefore they are a value. We, as a society, value automobiles. Although we would describe this as an economic value or personal taste value, it can not help also being of moral value.
Let's see how one reasons theologically:
To own a car we must purchase a car. To use a car, we must drive it, fuel it, maintain and control it. Cars, however morally neutral they may be in themselves as inanimate manufactured vehicles, have associated with them conditions that effect us morally. Do we spend tens of thousands of dollars on one vehicle in order to boost our social standing and define ourselves as superior to others financially, when we could just as easily purchase an inexpensive practical sedan for under ten thousand dollars, or a used one for thousands less? The latter decision would have not only been a humbler choice, having achieved no social promotion or encouraged envy within a circle of friends, clients or family--it would also have freed up tens of thousands of dollars for serving others' needs and preventing debilitating indebtedness.
Do we purchase large vehicles with larger engines that will necessarily demand greater quantities of gasoline and take up more space on the road, or do we purchase smaller, fuel efficienct vehicles? This becomes a moral issue on numerous levels: Greater gas consumption (according to the economic laws of supply and demand) increases the demand thereby driving up prices for everyone. If my Hummer or SUV consumes more I end up forcing others to pay more because I have reduced the common supply of gasoline disproportionally more than my neighbor who drives a small, 4-cylinder, fuel efficient Toyota or Honda sedan. Additionally my larger vehicle pollutes to a greater extent, harming the environment. My large vehicle is also more difficult to park fairly in a common parking lot~~at times intruding on another parking space that forces another driver to find another space further away since they can't squeeze into the space I have left over. Larger vehicles are more difficult to slow down quickly (due to the laws of inertia that Newton explained cogently centuries ago) thereby making large vehicles less safe of other on or near the road (particularily bicyclists). In essence,then, larger vehicles so coveted by the American public are a selfish choice~~their purchase and use, consequently, involve moral values.
As a Christian I recognize the Constitution's first 10 amendments as a secular insistence on rights while failing to list corresponding responsibilities. After having participated in a six week study through First Baptist church (McMinnville, OR.) that reflected on Jim Wallis's book, God's Politics, I have been questioning more deeply what is meant by Christian values, and family values. I fear most of us don't truly wrestle with understanding and arriving at firm values, based in an orthodox, historical Christian faith, that embraces the paradoxes of truth, and the inexorable demands of authentic, redemptive, consuming LOVE. Many American evangelicals simply spout a canned Republican line, and have let someone else do their thinking and theologizing. I like Jim Wallis's periodical assessment of much of current evangelical, right-wing thinking: its just bad theology.
So how does a good theology, a reflective, faithful, sacrificial theology work, that desires the redemption of the world, and takes seriously Jesus's actions, strategies and teachings? I have decided to reflect and theologize practically: Let me propose an example using an actual cherished American value: car ownership. Now some may object immediately, and say that car ownership is not a "value," but I would say that it is, because obviously since we spend so much of our time purchasing, servicing, fueling and driving our vehicles, we value them. We value what they look like, how we look in them, how others look at us and regard us when we are driving in them or parking them in our driveways for others to see. We are quite ready to pay whatever price it takes to keep them on the road. They are valuable to us, therefore they are a value. We, as a society, value automobiles. Although we would describe this as an economic value or personal taste value, it can not help also being of moral value.
Let's see how one reasons theologically:
To own a car we must purchase a car. To use a car, we must drive it, fuel it, maintain and control it. Cars, however morally neutral they may be in themselves as inanimate manufactured vehicles, have associated with them conditions that effect us morally. Do we spend tens of thousands of dollars on one vehicle in order to boost our social standing and define ourselves as superior to others financially, when we could just as easily purchase an inexpensive practical sedan for under ten thousand dollars, or a used one for thousands less? The latter decision would have not only been a humbler choice, having achieved no social promotion or encouraged envy within a circle of friends, clients or family--it would also have freed up tens of thousands of dollars for serving others' needs and preventing debilitating indebtedness.
Do we purchase large vehicles with larger engines that will necessarily demand greater quantities of gasoline and take up more space on the road, or do we purchase smaller, fuel efficienct vehicles? This becomes a moral issue on numerous levels: Greater gas consumption (according to the economic laws of supply and demand) increases the demand thereby driving up prices for everyone. If my Hummer or SUV consumes more I end up forcing others to pay more because I have reduced the common supply of gasoline disproportionally more than my neighbor who drives a small, 4-cylinder, fuel efficient Toyota or Honda sedan. Additionally my larger vehicle pollutes to a greater extent, harming the environment. My large vehicle is also more difficult to park fairly in a common parking lot~~at times intruding on another parking space that forces another driver to find another space further away since they can't squeeze into the space I have left over. Larger vehicles are more difficult to slow down quickly (due to the laws of inertia that Newton explained cogently centuries ago) thereby making large vehicles less safe of other on or near the road (particularily bicyclists). In essence,then, larger vehicles so coveted by the American public are a selfish choice~~their purchase and use, consequently, involve moral values.
Dropouts
I saw another headline lamenting the high school dropout rate. As a teacher I'm usually quite sympathetic to the concern we, as a society, have for keeping students in school and all that implies. Generally, as a society, we are supposed to be concerned with youth completing a high school education so that they can become productive, informed, responsible members of society, and that consequently they may get jobs, pay taxes, and perform essential services for the rest of society. Somehow, keeping every high school kid in school through graduation is supposed to assure this. Or at least encourage it. The problem is this: the deeper problem is much bigger than this, far more systemic, and fundamentally beyond the scope or capabilities of public (or private) educators.
First of all must be challenged the assumption that all high school students should graduate. Along with that is the corollary that after graduation, graduates should go on to attend college. There is also the assumption that the root of the problem lies within public education system, or is a defect within the power of teachers to rectify. Consequently since the problem has not been rectified teachers are blamed. But one assumption at a time.
First of all, we should not assume all students should graduate. Many, if not most, student should be encouraged to graduate because it suits them. It suits them. They are inherently oriented towards academic pursuits, they can benefit from those pursuits, and gain skills and knowledge that can be put to good use for the benefit of society. In other words, society and individuals mutually benefit, prosper and mature together. An example is a science oriented student (gifted in scientific intelligences) that learns biology, disciplines his mind and energies to go on to medical school, and subsequently becomes a doctor who serves a given community healing diseases, setting broken bones, and the like. A high school education was an integral part of that process of becoming educated.
However, what if a given student is not benefited by a high school diploma, or can pursue his own education without the need to jump through hoops? What if a student is too oppressed by the atmosphere, feels too belittled by fellow students or perhaps a staff member? What if, in some way, the high school scene does not suit him, and is detrimental to his hope, his abilities, his aspirations? Other students with limited mental abilities may have enough education for the job that they wish to have at the tenth grade level, and would like to move on, work for a relative, settle down into some sort of job and establish them selves in an occupation that does not require a high school diploma. We must not assume that one shoe size fits all, or that some people will do quite fine going barefoot.
First of all must be challenged the assumption that all high school students should graduate. Along with that is the corollary that after graduation, graduates should go on to attend college. There is also the assumption that the root of the problem lies within public education system, or is a defect within the power of teachers to rectify. Consequently since the problem has not been rectified teachers are blamed. But one assumption at a time.
First of all, we should not assume all students should graduate. Many, if not most, student should be encouraged to graduate because it suits them. It suits them. They are inherently oriented towards academic pursuits, they can benefit from those pursuits, and gain skills and knowledge that can be put to good use for the benefit of society. In other words, society and individuals mutually benefit, prosper and mature together. An example is a science oriented student (gifted in scientific intelligences) that learns biology, disciplines his mind and energies to go on to medical school, and subsequently becomes a doctor who serves a given community healing diseases, setting broken bones, and the like. A high school education was an integral part of that process of becoming educated.
However, what if a given student is not benefited by a high school diploma, or can pursue his own education without the need to jump through hoops? What if a student is too oppressed by the atmosphere, feels too belittled by fellow students or perhaps a staff member? What if, in some way, the high school scene does not suit him, and is detrimental to his hope, his abilities, his aspirations? Other students with limited mental abilities may have enough education for the job that they wish to have at the tenth grade level, and would like to move on, work for a relative, settle down into some sort of job and establish them selves in an occupation that does not require a high school diploma. We must not assume that one shoe size fits all, or that some people will do quite fine going barefoot.
Sunday, April 17, 2005
YAHOO Mexico Mission Trip 2005
Eleven people from McMinnville Covenant, joined by sixty other Christians from various churches, gathered at the First Presbyterian Church, McMinnville, Friday morning, March 18th. Bob DeMaster (our resident doctor), Chuck McAllister, Bob Carter, Dick Moore (supervisor and chief boss), Doug and Sam Burch, Lauren Pruett, Molly McFadden, Melaine Janssen, and Pete and Brent Strobel represented our church. At 7:00 a.m. six white vans awaited our boarding. Two white trucks crammed with sleeping bags, duffle bags, boxes of shovels, saws and other tools had already gone on ahead of us (driven by four Covenanters). A cheering squad of parents and parishioners gave us their blessing as we departed. A thousand mile trip lay before us. Many of us had never gone before, and all we had to bolster our courage and resolve were stories of past years. Stories of hard work, but meaningful work. Stories of dire poverty, but loving hearts. Stories of another culture and language, but one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. (Ephesians 4:5) That’s only a little bit of what the Yamhill Alliance Helping Others Out is all about.
We were over 70 youth and adults from seven congregations. We didn’t know everyone. But the leadership carefully devised a traveling carpool schedule that helped us to get to know one another. At rest stops someone might even climb trees, but usually not. In the evenings we’d gather for worship, singing, prayer and a chance to reflect on Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. Scripture under girded our purpose and ministry.
By the first evening we had arrived in Carmichael, CA, a suburb of Sacramento. By the second night we reached Laguna Niguel, just south of Los Angeles. By Sunday afternoon we were setting up camp in Tecate after picking up AMOR Ministries’ staff members in San Diego, traveling across the border at Tijuana, and driving past dilapidated houses that gave witness to a socio-economic status not our own. A few of us former scouts remarked that the camp wasn’t crude by Boy Scout standards, but perhaps the gorgeous trees and striking hillsides punctuated with weathered rock outcroppings had something to do with it. The center of our camp was the kitchen tent.
Monday was our first day of work. The muscles and sweat of 70 plus Christian men and women, young and old, replaced a cement truck, power tools, and paid contract workers. Pickaxes broke the soil in three different locations, 2 x 4 wooden frames painstakingly accurate, defined the borders of the concrete slabs poured by the hands that had mixed cement, sand, rock, fiber and water, with only the help of shovels, hoes, buckets and wheelbarrows. A broken rusty water truck stood near one construction site, a mute testimony to a community that doesn’t enjoy piped-in running water or even a sewer system. We smoothed the wet concrete, chased off a wayward rooster that left tracks in the slab, and re-smoothed the future floor again. Each night we returned to our campsite where our tents were huddled to enjoy a meal together before we retired to our sleeping bags: warm, dry places to lay our aching muscles and weary limbs at night.
After applying sunscreen in the morning, we headed to the construction sites, rotating our work crews so that each family group would have a chance to work on each house. Tuesday was framing day. AMOR Ministries provides the blueprints for each of the 11 foot by 22 foot houses. The missioners young and old pay for the supplies. Fortunately enough of the YAHOO missioners had had experience. For some unexplainable, divine reason, people keep returning year after year to endure the hardships in order to reap the rewards of service. With hammers, saws, levels, lots of nails, wooden boards and plywood, dreams are erected, and hope is kindled. Families receive houses, and a bunch of kids and adults from McMinnville receive immeasurable blessings. Each noon we stopped for lunch and devotions. One day a group of us even had the opportunity to lay our hands in prayer and supplication for our new friend, Juan, whose simple 484 square foot house was built before his eyes and with his help in only three and a half days.
Tuesday night the sky clouded over, the temperature dropped to the thirties, and the skies poured rain on our heads and soaked a few sleeping bags. Wednesday we drove to our sites on the unpaved roads through a slurry of mud and puddles. For the next two days we experienced typical Oregon weather, a thousand mile south of home. Bundled up in rain jackets we wrapped each house in tar paper and strung chicken wire, tightening it like a snare drum skin so that it could hold the stucco in place. Somehow we got ahead of schedule and began mixing the sand and cement for the stucco by Wednesday. Before we left that late afternoon, we’d applied some of the first coat and installed the windows. That night it rained again.
Thursday we finished the house with a second complete coat of stucco, and installed the doors. Swept clean, our tools packed up, we visited each house and left each family with a candle reminding them of Christ’s light, a blessing from our hearts, a hospitality box filled with blankets, quilts, pots and pans and other supplies. Lastly, but symbolically powerful, we gave them their keys. There were few dry eyes, and I believe we will all remember the hug that Juan gave us forever. Such gratitude is rarely seen or received in our too often cynical and materialistic society.
So why did we go? Last week during worship we sang: “The Lord hears the cry of the poor.” And so the Lord answers that cry through us, His body currently incarnate. Gerard Manley Hopkins wrote: “Christ plays in ten thousand places,/ Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his/ To the Father through the features of our faces.” Are we not the ears of Jesus hearing this cry of the poor? Are we not His feet to hurry to service, His hands eager to lift walls and slide roofs into place? It is not we who do these things, but Christ within us. We are His Arms of Love. To this we are called. Amen.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Music: Personally Listening
Music is such a personal thing. I think sometimes when we listen we make judgments about ourselves and other who like or dislike the songs and singers we like or dislike. I have a friend who really likes Tupac (now deceased) the rapper. I mentally vomit at the crass called rap, but to others they hear rhyme and rhythm, righteous indignation and social commentary. The crass language and crashing beat of rap moves them, like it does my friend. I keep him as my friend because our friendship is rich and supportive, stimulating and compassionate. We just don’t listen to his Tupac together. I'm not sure if he'd enjoy Cat Stevens as much as I do, or whether he'd just fall asleep.
Sometimes we should listen to each other’s music and listen beyond or behind the beat that jars our senses, or the words either too bitterly profane or too saccharine sweet for our tastes.
For a number of years (before my son turned 18 and could no longer pursue the Eagle rank) I was involved with the Boy Scouts. My son was a Life Scout, and I was an Assistant Scoutmaster. There was this one boy, Evan, who would always seek me out just to talk—any campout or troop meeting—and eventually he’d always mention the music he loved, or a song he’d just memorized. And he’d sing me snatches of lyrics that sometimes I’d raise my eyebrows at. But I think he really knew how much I liked him anyway. We’d laugh, joke around and I would be tolerant of hearing about music I’d never want to hear by myself. He even burned me a Blink 182 CD because he cared so much.
I could never quite understand his persistence to persuade me into liking his style of music, but I think he thought if I learned to like it I’d like him even more. Such is the power of music to sway us.
Sometimes we should listen to each other’s music and listen beyond or behind the beat that jars our senses, or the words either too bitterly profane or too saccharine sweet for our tastes.
For a number of years (before my son turned 18 and could no longer pursue the Eagle rank) I was involved with the Boy Scouts. My son was a Life Scout, and I was an Assistant Scoutmaster. There was this one boy, Evan, who would always seek me out just to talk—any campout or troop meeting—and eventually he’d always mention the music he loved, or a song he’d just memorized. And he’d sing me snatches of lyrics that sometimes I’d raise my eyebrows at. But I think he really knew how much I liked him anyway. We’d laugh, joke around and I would be tolerant of hearing about music I’d never want to hear by myself. He even burned me a Blink 182 CD because he cared so much.
I could never quite understand his persistence to persuade me into liking his style of music, but I think he thought if I learned to like it I’d like him even more. Such is the power of music to sway us.
A Y.A.H.O.O. reflection: on the way to Mexico.
As we drove down to Tecate, Mexico to build three simple houses through Amor Ministries, I wrote these thoughts:
“I’m seriously wondering how wet it will be down there in Mexico. All through California it’s been raining. I brought a rain poncho, a jacket and hat, but this will be serious. Mud-caked shoes, soaked jeans, chilled fingers. But think ~ the people who we are going to help are living in cardboard shacks—makeshift huts with mud flooring. They are shivering even as I travel south—warm and comfortable as soft music lulls me in-and-out of sleep and reflective moments.
For four days I’ll shiver and stink, gripe of the mud and hammer nails into swollen wooden planks, but maybe I’ll get to leave behind a roof that won’t leak, a floor that won’t squish underfoot, and windows that will leave the weather outside for a happy family. ~ At the next rainstorm brown eyes beneath a mop of black hair will peer outside and those eyes will twinkle.
Some of the saints of old probably would have entered into this whole experience with relish and sublime delight all the while mud would run in rivulets down their forearms and drip off their elbows. With sandals sunk deep into the muck around them they’d hoist the boards onto their shoulders like the beams of puny crosses and embrace the feel of the wood as a sweet imitation and participation in the crucifixion of their Lord and Savior. For to these saints Jesus is truly Lord and Savior, not one without the other. With every nail they’d hammer they’d hear the nails that pierced their Lord’s wrists and the sound of the metal on metal would be the very utterance of Love Divine.
That’s how the saints would receive this commission: with arms of Love. How will I enter into this mission? If mud be dried to dust, or dust be soaked to mud, will either matter? If my fingers be slit by slivers or the rain makes me shiver will it matter? Will I be able to encourage the teen that saws next to me, and laugh with the grown-up across from me? Or will my thoughts be wrapped up about me, my comfort, my pleasure and my needs?
Oh, Lord, help me to remember the saints of old, and welcome this time as they would."
“I’m seriously wondering how wet it will be down there in Mexico. All through California it’s been raining. I brought a rain poncho, a jacket and hat, but this will be serious. Mud-caked shoes, soaked jeans, chilled fingers. But think ~ the people who we are going to help are living in cardboard shacks—makeshift huts with mud flooring. They are shivering even as I travel south—warm and comfortable as soft music lulls me in-and-out of sleep and reflective moments.
For four days I’ll shiver and stink, gripe of the mud and hammer nails into swollen wooden planks, but maybe I’ll get to leave behind a roof that won’t leak, a floor that won’t squish underfoot, and windows that will leave the weather outside for a happy family. ~ At the next rainstorm brown eyes beneath a mop of black hair will peer outside and those eyes will twinkle.
Some of the saints of old probably would have entered into this whole experience with relish and sublime delight all the while mud would run in rivulets down their forearms and drip off their elbows. With sandals sunk deep into the muck around them they’d hoist the boards onto their shoulders like the beams of puny crosses and embrace the feel of the wood as a sweet imitation and participation in the crucifixion of their Lord and Savior. For to these saints Jesus is truly Lord and Savior, not one without the other. With every nail they’d hammer they’d hear the nails that pierced their Lord’s wrists and the sound of the metal on metal would be the very utterance of Love Divine.
That’s how the saints would receive this commission: with arms of Love. How will I enter into this mission? If mud be dried to dust, or dust be soaked to mud, will either matter? If my fingers be slit by slivers or the rain makes me shiver will it matter? Will I be able to encourage the teen that saws next to me, and laugh with the grown-up across from me? Or will my thoughts be wrapped up about me, my comfort, my pleasure and my needs?
Oh, Lord, help me to remember the saints of old, and welcome this time as they would."
Standing Under When Understanding Fails
Understanding at last fades away into the unknown, the mysterious and wonderful. What remains, what reveals itself—even as it conceals itself—as more important than understanding is the act and passion of standing under. I look skyward and take in the vastness of blue riddled with tufts and clumps of clouds, bare tree branches starkly silhouetted against this canvas, and I understand truly so little. So I stand under instead. And it is enough: to take your stand under the heavens above, grasping only the rudiments of the physics involved, but reveling in the aesthetics beyond it. This is enough: it is the right response—not to turn away into my four-walls-and-a-roof in order to escape my non-understanding, my ignorance and feeble facts. To stand under the sky and to stand under the branches of the forest, to stand under the mountain’s shadow and the weaving ribbon of geese in flight: Now this is life and health, hope and wonder. In this my mind rests and finds peace.
Sunday, February 06, 2005
Not so innocent
When I first drafted this post I considered a rather provocative title for this particular entry. I changed part of it. I could have written: Guilty as Hell, but that's far more Calvinistic than I can stomach. But it leads me to what troubles me about my career. The public school classroom reveals itself for what it is: a laboratory for investigating and unmasking in myriad ways the reality of Original Sin. One thinks of The Lord of the Flies, and one becomes solemn. I'm not sure, but I can imagine that most parents hope that their child's teacher will be such a person that doesn't believe in a concept of Original Sin, or at least can shelve such a concept for their children's sake. So much nowadays seems to revolve around bolstering a person's (a student's) self-esteem, that almost everything, including the truth about what a child does, and how a child is motivated, must take a back seat to making sure a child's feelings aren't hurt.
It seems that every time I turn around I'm told to build up a child's self-esteem, as if such an action in itself has innate and irrefutable benefits for each and every child. Self-esteem has become a Virtue on a par with Love, Mercy, and Truthfulness. But self-esteem isn't a virtue; it simply denotes one's self-concept, and a judgment about whether one measures up--or not. I believe a healthy or truthful self-esteem is chiefly and overwhelmingly influenced by the amount of hard, sincere, creative work or labor a child (or any person, for that matter) puts into a project or objective. Little does self-esteem depend on the fanciful praises of an educator or parent. It depends on what one accomplishes, and the motivation behind one's actions. And quite frankly, one's motivations are highly suspect: my own included. I have come to know a few children, as well as many adults, who do not suffer from a low self-esteem, but most definitely suffer from a lack of compassion, honesty and a sense of justice. Self-esteem, in itself, is amoral. As far as I can surmise, Adolf Hitler had an exaggerated self-esteem. He esteemed himself so highly, that the annihilation of entire ethnic races seemed necessary.
But let me get back to the topic at hand: innocence.
You see, kids aren't so innocent because humans aren't so innocent. We are fallen, which means that something in us is fundamentally broken, at our very core. It isn't the case that children are born virtuous and innocent then gradually become jaded, corrupted and selfish by watching and mimicking adults. No, they, like we, were born only desiring to look out for themselves, ole' number one. One of the chief purposes of education is to open their eyes and hearts to the needs of the world, and tear their eyes away from gazing incessantly into the mirror of their own wants and egos. At least that is what I believe.
I've been experiencing a lot of that internal human brokenness this year in my classroom. This isn't a simple, disparaging comment, a withered sigh of still another beleagured and overtaxed public school teacher, pining after the golden days when school budgets weren't leaner than a trimmed flank steak, or when class sizes hovered around twenty instead of thirty. No, this is a sober theological reflection: We are broken. Kids are broken. And it will take more than an exciting, challenging, whole-language, hands-on curriculum to get them fixed. It will take God.
In his book, Blue Like Jazz, Donald Miller writes about the awakening of a sense of discomfort with the world and himself when he was a teenager. He writes: " Still, I knew, because of my own feelings, there was something wrong with me, and I knew it wasn't only me... It showed itself in loneliness, lust, anger, jealousy, and depression. It had people screwed up bad everywhere you went--at the store, at home, at church, [at school, I might add]; it was ugly and deep. Lots of singers on the radio were singing about it, and cops had jobs because of it. It was as if we were broken... It was as if we were cracked, couldn't love right, couldn't feel good things for very long without screwing it all up..."
Later Don Miller makes some very thoughtful and sobering comments about our political system and why the Constitution was written in the way it was. His thoughts about the greatness of our Constitution doesn't exactly elevate one's view of humanity, but it's realistic. And true. "It is hard for us to admit we have a sin nature because we live in this system of checks and balances. If we get caught, we will be punished. But that doesn't make us good people; it only makes us subdued. Just think about the Congress and Senate and even the president. The genius of the American system is not freedom; the genius of the American system is checks and balances. Nobody gets all the power. Everybody is watching everybody else. It is as if the founding fathers knew, intrinsically, that the soul of man, unwatched, is perverse."
Kids aren't the only ones broken. So are adults. All adults. All of us. Some of us realize this and are letting God, by degrees, repair us, fix us, un-break us, mend us. He is making all things new. But this remaking and renewing of ourselves is not happening because a teacher has reasoned with a kid who gets his jollies from poking his neighbor, calling the kid with glasses "four eyes," or stealing someone's lunch just because he wants to see her cry. Cruelty, rebellion, theft, perversion, hatred, wrath and murder begin in small ways. Imperceptible acts of selfishness and egocentricity. The best we can do is dispel the myth that people will be doing these crimes because they "didn't know any better." Our work is to make sure our kids, as they become our adults, do know better, even if they persist in not doing any better. God's Spirit intercedes at that point, or else... or else all collapses in despair. Contemporary Innocence is a myth. Like Paradise, it was lost long ago.
It seems that every time I turn around I'm told to build up a child's self-esteem, as if such an action in itself has innate and irrefutable benefits for each and every child. Self-esteem has become a Virtue on a par with Love, Mercy, and Truthfulness. But self-esteem isn't a virtue; it simply denotes one's self-concept, and a judgment about whether one measures up--or not. I believe a healthy or truthful self-esteem is chiefly and overwhelmingly influenced by the amount of hard, sincere, creative work or labor a child (or any person, for that matter) puts into a project or objective. Little does self-esteem depend on the fanciful praises of an educator or parent. It depends on what one accomplishes, and the motivation behind one's actions. And quite frankly, one's motivations are highly suspect: my own included. I have come to know a few children, as well as many adults, who do not suffer from a low self-esteem, but most definitely suffer from a lack of compassion, honesty and a sense of justice. Self-esteem, in itself, is amoral. As far as I can surmise, Adolf Hitler had an exaggerated self-esteem. He esteemed himself so highly, that the annihilation of entire ethnic races seemed necessary.
But let me get back to the topic at hand: innocence.
You see, kids aren't so innocent because humans aren't so innocent. We are fallen, which means that something in us is fundamentally broken, at our very core. It isn't the case that children are born virtuous and innocent then gradually become jaded, corrupted and selfish by watching and mimicking adults. No, they, like we, were born only desiring to look out for themselves, ole' number one. One of the chief purposes of education is to open their eyes and hearts to the needs of the world, and tear their eyes away from gazing incessantly into the mirror of their own wants and egos. At least that is what I believe.
I've been experiencing a lot of that internal human brokenness this year in my classroom. This isn't a simple, disparaging comment, a withered sigh of still another beleagured and overtaxed public school teacher, pining after the golden days when school budgets weren't leaner than a trimmed flank steak, or when class sizes hovered around twenty instead of thirty. No, this is a sober theological reflection: We are broken. Kids are broken. And it will take more than an exciting, challenging, whole-language, hands-on curriculum to get them fixed. It will take God.
In his book, Blue Like Jazz, Donald Miller writes about the awakening of a sense of discomfort with the world and himself when he was a teenager. He writes: " Still, I knew, because of my own feelings, there was something wrong with me, and I knew it wasn't only me... It showed itself in loneliness, lust, anger, jealousy, and depression. It had people screwed up bad everywhere you went--at the store, at home, at church, [at school, I might add]; it was ugly and deep. Lots of singers on the radio were singing about it, and cops had jobs because of it. It was as if we were broken... It was as if we were cracked, couldn't love right, couldn't feel good things for very long without screwing it all up..."
Later Don Miller makes some very thoughtful and sobering comments about our political system and why the Constitution was written in the way it was. His thoughts about the greatness of our Constitution doesn't exactly elevate one's view of humanity, but it's realistic. And true. "It is hard for us to admit we have a sin nature because we live in this system of checks and balances. If we get caught, we will be punished. But that doesn't make us good people; it only makes us subdued. Just think about the Congress and Senate and even the president. The genius of the American system is not freedom; the genius of the American system is checks and balances. Nobody gets all the power. Everybody is watching everybody else. It is as if the founding fathers knew, intrinsically, that the soul of man, unwatched, is perverse."
Kids aren't the only ones broken. So are adults. All adults. All of us. Some of us realize this and are letting God, by degrees, repair us, fix us, un-break us, mend us. He is making all things new. But this remaking and renewing of ourselves is not happening because a teacher has reasoned with a kid who gets his jollies from poking his neighbor, calling the kid with glasses "four eyes," or stealing someone's lunch just because he wants to see her cry. Cruelty, rebellion, theft, perversion, hatred, wrath and murder begin in small ways. Imperceptible acts of selfishness and egocentricity. The best we can do is dispel the myth that people will be doing these crimes because they "didn't know any better." Our work is to make sure our kids, as they become our adults, do know better, even if they persist in not doing any better. God's Spirit intercedes at that point, or else... or else all collapses in despair. Contemporary Innocence is a myth. Like Paradise, it was lost long ago.
Monday, January 24, 2005
Crucial Passages
This last Sunday during his sermon, our pastor used the phrase "crucial passage" in referring to the scripture he was quoting. "Standing by the cross of Jesus was Mary..." (John19:25). I'm not sure whether our pastor realized that the word he chose, "crucial," comes from the word "cross" in Latin: "crux." Every passage about the cross is crucial, in essence. And herein lies the crux, the turning point, the essential, supremely critical point of every matter, or all that truly matters.
All that is crucial is cross-like. From this root word also comes "excruciating," for the pain experienced on a cross is excruciating. The cross is the crossroad of the avenues of truth and reality. Here Heaven intersects with Earth; God with Man. The crucial passages are those that bring Man closest to God, yet the result of that encounter may be excruciating. For on the cross such pain far surpasses any comforting.
Crucial passages inherently imply pain. The pain of dying to ourselves. The pain of being at one time or another forsaken because of the ways we are separated from God. We need to heed the crucial passages and let their words impale our hearts. "But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and immediately there gushed water and blood." (John 19:34) This is a crucial passage...
But there arises another sense of the word "crux." For the crux of a matter lies within the turning point, the pivotal point, the fulcrum point. Within the subject of mechanical physics taught to our fifth-graders, we teach a unit on Levers and Pulleys. Levers are wonderful tools to make work easier, in fact, in some cases some kinds of work are impossible without levers. A lever can be quite simple, yet every lever has a load arm, a force or effort arm, and a fulcrum. The fulcrum doesn't move, but it is around that central point that levers do their work.
The physics behind levers demonstrates that the closer the load is to the fulcrum, the easier the load is to lift, and the further the effort or force is from the fulcrum, the lighter the load feels. The spiritual ramifications for this image can be staggering. For you see, the crux of the matter, the fulcrum of our shared history and destiny as the human race is the incarnation of Christ and Christ on the Cross. The crux of the History of Humanity stands planted in the ground of Golgotha. The closer that we move towards this Fulcrum of Salvation, the easier it is to lift the load: to have the load of sin and alienation lifted from us. The closer we stand by the cross, even as Mary stood by the cross, the easier it is from Him Who is the Still Point of a turning world to lift our load of sin, guilt and shame, of our rebellion and despair, of our brokenness and alienation. And Who is at the other end? So seemingly at an infinite distance from the fulcrum so that every burden can be borne aloft? It is the Father Whose effort lifts our burdens. It is God Who necessarily had to distance himself so far from the Fulcrum that the Fulcrum cried out in lonely anguish: "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"
We are at one side of the Fulcrum, but God is on the other side---so like a giant seesaw he lifts us up... Some of the most sublime truths can be discovered on the playground. Who would have believed that a simple image of a child's play equipment might be for us a model to understand God's forsaking the Fulcrum of History in order to bring about our Salvation and the Lifting of our burdens.
And some people scoff the wisdom of ensuring a few minutes of recess for our children.
Crucial passages. May they lead to our ReCreation.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
What is Important
It's evening. I've already taken the dog out for a nice walk. It's not our dog, but belongs to our friends, the Huffmans. Along the greenway a light fog hugged the grass as walkway lamps illuminated the hovering water vapor in the cool night air. Yet a certain unseasonal warmth prevented me from feeling chilled. The walk did wonders for me. A walk usually does, or especially a good run down Hill Road into the countryside. I love to gaze across the fields, green with wheat shoots or grass tufts, towards the hills whose silhouettes can be seen faintly through the mists and stripes of fog typical of winter. Fog often encourages a sense of mystery in me. This is important to me. Many things are important: things of import, of meaning and significance. Under the clear, sharp, blue sky of summer, things seem so clear, stark and ... mere, at times. Everyone is out and about and everything appears commonplace, even drab. Such clarity of air and sky lends a sense of transparency that causes you to be too sure of things, because they are so clear. But during the winter when most folks huddle inside by the fire or space heater, or lounge in easy chairs if their homes are heated centrally, I venture out to breathe the chill air and smell the scent of smoke drifting my way from brick chimneys. And to behold the fog concealing details of things not far away and letting the mind imagine things beyond the outlines the fog allows. Enough light gets through so one can perceive shapes, but still wonder at what is truly behind or inside those shapes.
Translucence leads one down paths that transparence doesn't encourage.
So what is important to me, besides mystery? Many things come together for me at school. I go out to watch my children ... my students, but I think of them as my children ... during recess. My eyes will wander to the hills half hidden behind homes and houses. Stands of Douglas fir will congregate here and there that during the winter show only an uneven saw blade outline in the mists that wreath the hills. I will yearn to be there. Perhaps out on my bike, climbing the hills on a winding road. Or maybe out under the branches of the firs, scuffing the duff in search of chantrelle mushrooms. And then my eyes are torn from the longing for adventures in nature by the sound of young voices in glee or distress nearby. I wonder how many of the children that argue and chase, shove and blame one another ever bother to raise their heads to look with wonder at the hills not so far away. Are they moved by the fog as I am? Do they allow feelings of awe stir within, to quiet them or arouse them to care for others, to care for mysteries, to care for nature, or to be thankful for God? I don't know. I do know why some people feel that childhood is wasted on the young.
But nonetheless, these children are important to me. Boys with their unruly ways, unkempt hair, bright eyes and energetic limbs; and girls with auburn curls or wisps of blond, flashing smiles and giggles of delight. I know that all children are by definition immature humans in process of growing. At times it doesn't make their immaturity and self-centeredness less a thing to be outgrown, but at least something that is much more bearable knowing that these levels of growth are...in the grand scheme of things...something temporary.
To outgrow childishness and ingrow childlikeness is the task of youth.
For these things of importance we give Thee thanks, o Lord. Amen.
Translucence leads one down paths that transparence doesn't encourage.
So what is important to me, besides mystery? Many things come together for me at school. I go out to watch my children ... my students, but I think of them as my children ... during recess. My eyes will wander to the hills half hidden behind homes and houses. Stands of Douglas fir will congregate here and there that during the winter show only an uneven saw blade outline in the mists that wreath the hills. I will yearn to be there. Perhaps out on my bike, climbing the hills on a winding road. Or maybe out under the branches of the firs, scuffing the duff in search of chantrelle mushrooms. And then my eyes are torn from the longing for adventures in nature by the sound of young voices in glee or distress nearby. I wonder how many of the children that argue and chase, shove and blame one another ever bother to raise their heads to look with wonder at the hills not so far away. Are they moved by the fog as I am? Do they allow feelings of awe stir within, to quiet them or arouse them to care for others, to care for mysteries, to care for nature, or to be thankful for God? I don't know. I do know why some people feel that childhood is wasted on the young.
But nonetheless, these children are important to me. Boys with their unruly ways, unkempt hair, bright eyes and energetic limbs; and girls with auburn curls or wisps of blond, flashing smiles and giggles of delight. I know that all children are by definition immature humans in process of growing. At times it doesn't make their immaturity and self-centeredness less a thing to be outgrown, but at least something that is much more bearable knowing that these levels of growth are...in the grand scheme of things...something temporary.
To outgrow childishness and ingrow childlikeness is the task of youth.
For these things of importance we give Thee thanks, o Lord. Amen.
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Ice Storm
It's not exactly a storm, but last night as the rain fell, thin sheets of ice began forming on everything outside. We'd hoped for snow, but the cold was hugging the ground more than it was cooling the sky. Rain falls then freezes, coating every branch with increasingly thicker layers of ice: the tree twigs are smitten with ice mittens.
But then later today it thawed. The branches lost their crackling ice sheaths. The sidewalks their slickness. Only a few degrees transforms water from a solid to a liquid, from treacherous slickness, to something moistly benign.
Ah the wonders of nature.
Blessings to all tonight during this winter season.
But then later today it thawed. The branches lost their crackling ice sheaths. The sidewalks their slickness. Only a few degrees transforms water from a solid to a liquid, from treacherous slickness, to something moistly benign.
Ah the wonders of nature.
Blessings to all tonight during this winter season.
Friday, January 14, 2005
Welcome to my Blog (online journal)
Welcome. It's the end of a school day. My students have left, the light is failing outside, and a three day weekend looms ahead. Today we had a great talk and discussion about Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks, as well as a talk about the civil rights movement as a whole. It wasn't very long ago that our nation was caught up in the grips of racism and segregation. Such attitudes die reluctantly within a nation. Remnants remain.
I remember the adventure I took to Africa back in 1976. I went with a group of United Methodist youth and adults to three nations in Africa: South Africa, Kenya and Zambia (where we spent about 3 weeks.) South Africa, at that time, was embroiled in racial conflict: Apartheid reigned supreme. It was difficult to imagine a change in that country's future except through the sword and fire... Nelson Mandela was still very much in prison, Soweto was rioting, blacks could not vote, and the whites lorded all things over them... But then within fifteen years everything changed. In 1985 I witnessed and participated in new protests in the streets of Berkeley: protesting investments in the brutal South African regime (or at least that is what the Berkeleyites called it. I was after all in BeZerkley, heart of leftwing activism...). I remember seeing Archbishop Desmond Tutu actually fly in with a helicopter while thousands of students and activists chanted and let the walls of UCBerkeley resound with cries of protest against apartheid. It was stirring. Within a few years, due to protests across the world, South Africa changed. Nelson Mandela was freed. A year later he was elected President of the nation that had kept him in gaol for decades. Amazing. All without fire and the sword... or at least the bloodbath some had foretold. Gone are the segregated restaurants, buses, drinking fountains, post offices, schools... Just like the USA in the fifties and sixties. We can change. We have changed. We can still change, grow wiser, become more humane.
So here's to new growth, and a thank-you to Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks and Nelson Mandela, along with a host of others who helped all of us change nonviolently ( as much as we could ...)
Friday, Jan. 14th, 2005
I remember the adventure I took to Africa back in 1976. I went with a group of United Methodist youth and adults to three nations in Africa: South Africa, Kenya and Zambia (where we spent about 3 weeks.) South Africa, at that time, was embroiled in racial conflict: Apartheid reigned supreme. It was difficult to imagine a change in that country's future except through the sword and fire... Nelson Mandela was still very much in prison, Soweto was rioting, blacks could not vote, and the whites lorded all things over them... But then within fifteen years everything changed. In 1985 I witnessed and participated in new protests in the streets of Berkeley: protesting investments in the brutal South African regime (or at least that is what the Berkeleyites called it. I was after all in BeZerkley, heart of leftwing activism...). I remember seeing Archbishop Desmond Tutu actually fly in with a helicopter while thousands of students and activists chanted and let the walls of UCBerkeley resound with cries of protest against apartheid. It was stirring. Within a few years, due to protests across the world, South Africa changed. Nelson Mandela was freed. A year later he was elected President of the nation that had kept him in gaol for decades. Amazing. All without fire and the sword... or at least the bloodbath some had foretold. Gone are the segregated restaurants, buses, drinking fountains, post offices, schools... Just like the USA in the fifties and sixties. We can change. We have changed. We can still change, grow wiser, become more humane.
So here's to new growth, and a thank-you to Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks and Nelson Mandela, along with a host of others who helped all of us change nonviolently ( as much as we could ...)
Friday, Jan. 14th, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)