29 June 2005

Supersizing it.

I like food. Christians like food. But we forget to preach moderation.

For now, I think I’ve completed everything I need to in Scotts Valley, so I’m heading back to Vacaville.

The no-car method of getting there is pretty simple.

  1. Walk 1 km to Starbucks.
  2. Enjoy a delicious Coffee Light Frappuccino.
  3. Catch the Highway 17 Express bus to San Jose when it goes past a half-hour later.
  4. Catch the Amtrak train to Oakland, Sacramento, and Auburn.
  5. Get off in Suisun; get picked up by Mom; go home.
  6. Right now I’m in the middle of step 2. Mmm… Frappuccino.

Venti is hardly big enough. But it could be worse; I discovered recently that Starbucks in Japan doesn’t have any such size as venti. They have short, tall, and grande… and that’s it. The horror!…

I’m an American, and like most Americans, we either like enormous portions, or we at least like having the option to order an enormous portion. True, this is much of the reason why I weigh 102 kilos; I like food, and I haven’t previously paid attention to how many calories food contained. I only recently started. Hence the Frappuccino Light (which still contains 200 calories per 24 ounces).

When’s the last time you heard a sermon condemning gluttony? Last time I checked, it’s still one of the Seven Deadly Sins; last time I checked, it’s an American “epidemic,” or so the TV news reports every month or so, complete with video of really huge blob-like Americans walking around in public, shown from the neck down. Americans are getting fatter and the church, true to character, isn’t speaking out against it.

In fact, most Christians would react with horror if any sermon actually was to speak out against it. They’d condemn it as totally inappropriate. Especially considering the large number of large-bodied Christians (and I am one of them) that can’t hide this particular sin.

28 June 2005

Billy!


A lot of people think Billy Graham’s methods are out of date. That’s because people are different, and they aren’t Graham’s audience.

Billy Graham had his “last American crusade” in New York. CNN made a huge thing about it; for a while Headline News was giving glowing retrospectives of Graham’s life every hour. (So glowing, in fact, that someone walked into the lounge in mid-retrospective and said, “Why’re they showing this? Is he dead?”)

Graham’s one of those guys you just gotta admire. Even though he’s accused all the time of oversimplifying the gospel (and though it’s complicated, when you boil it down it is all about God loving us and Jesus saving us), the man’s stuck to this message with such tenacity that he had to leave behind Fundamentalism, liberalism, sectarianism, and every other -ism that the church has warped itself with. That, to me, is a sign that the man’s been on the right track.

I bring him up because lately many postmoderns have gotten onto the idea that Graham’s mass-conversion method doesn’t fit into their ideology. I was talking with Mom about this last night; she was at some meeting where it was pointed out that the future of evangelism is in one-on-one encounters, not crusades.

Postmoderns sometimes get so hung up on the fact that everyone’s different, they sometimes forget that everyone’s different. One-on-one relational evangelism works with a lot of people, but mass conversions work with a lot of people too, for different reasons. If this weren’t true, people wouldn’t come to Jesus at Graham’s crusades. The gospel doesn’t change, but the delivery system needs to be adapted for the individual—and it seems for a lot of people, the best adaptation is still an old guy in a pulpit giving a simple sermon. It doesn’t make any sense to toss a method that works simply because another one fits our ideology better.

27 June 2005

Opinions and opinion pieces, realistically viewed.

I got into opinion-writing because I thought merely stating an opinion would change a mind. Like that ever worked on me.

I did say I would Rant about this another time. So this is the other time.

In high school I was awarded “Most Prolific Writer” for the school paper because I wrote so dang much. No surprise to you, I’m sure. Like I’ve said before, I have three Rants an hour. I should also mention that I type between 70 and 120 words per minute. In the newspaper class, we had an hour every morning to write articles. That’s where I first discovered the three Rants an hour; just about every day I would compose at least three pieces for the newspaper. Some mornings I had as many as six. And this was all before I discovered coffee. Of course, not all of them could run; but I was getting more articles in than anyone else out of the sheer volume.

(Remember when I said I used to write the entire Dialog by myself? You might see how that might be possible.)

At the time, I assumed—like most opinionated people assume—that all I had to do was present my opinions and people would magically say, “By golly, here’s an article that states an opinion in an entertaining and witty manner, and he expresses it so forcefully. It must be true.” Okay, most people. The exception would be liberals that had somehow been brainwashed by their left-leaning parents; they were impervious to logic. Naรฏvely, I never considered the possibility that I might have been brainwashed by my right-leaning parents—or the fact that I had never studied logic. That’s pretty obvious to anyone who reads my earlier stuff: I never presented reasons for my beliefs. I just presented worst-case scenarios that would happen as a result of not believing as I did. Some of those scenarios definitely weren’t logical, but at the time, in my writings, logic took a back seat to funny.

Stupid Internet Survey: What hair color is right for you?

What hair color is right for you?

You scored as Red Head.

You scored as a red head. If this isn’t your current hair color… change it.

Red Head75%
Brunette65%
Black10%
Blonde5%

What hair color is right for you?
created with QuizFarm.com.

Of course, this quiz doesn’t take into account my skin tone and complexion at all. It’s entirely based on stereotypes. But I found it interesting that it picked the one color I have ever dyed my hair. (Unless you count all the times I made it green for Halloween.)

26 June 2005

Stupid Internet Survey: Which ๐˜™๐˜ฆ๐˜ท๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜จ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฐ๐˜ง ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜š๐˜ช๐˜ต๐˜ฉ character are you?

Which Revenge of the Sith Character are you?

You scored as Yoda.

Yoda89%
Mace Windu64%
Obi-Wan Kenobi61%
Anakin Skywalker47%
C-3PO42%
Padmรฉ Amidala39%
R2-D233%
Darth Vader31%
Chewbacca31%
Clone Trooper28%
General Grievous14%
Emperor Palpatine3%

Which Revenge of the Sith Character are you?
created with QuizFarm.com.

Damn right I’m Yoda.

Wait… said that wrong:

Yoda I am, damn right.

25 June 2005

On negativity and annoying people.

Back when I used to write newspaper columns, I would on occasion try to bug people deliberately. My justification for it was:

  1. Good writing pushes people’s buttons.
  2. They might get angry, but at least they’re reading.
  3. I’m entitled to my opinion, and have the right to express it.
  4. People that get bugged by this stuff are just cranks anyway.
  5. It’s fun.

Anyone who thinks this way is an a--hole; and like the a--hole I was, I preceded to write obnoxious pieces in the hopes of getting a reaction from people.

At the same time, I was also under the naรฏve assumption that my opinion pieces might change people’s minds over to my way of thinking. Somehow I didn’t put together that if my audience was pissed at me, they’d have no interest in changing their minds to my way of thinking. I also didn’t realize that people don’t read the opinion pages in order to make up their minds about anything… but that’s another Rant.

I was regularly frustrated in my attempts to be obnoxious by the fact that people weren’t offended by anything I meant them to be offended by. I’d accuse our local congressman of pandering to the local Satanists and wouldn’t hear any reaction to it.

The offenses always came from stuff I didn’t expect. Fr’instance, I’d use the word “crap” in a column and that would get a reaction. We had one regular nut-mail contributor, an old guy who contributed to every local newspaper, but only to complain about any inappropriate word or term he read in the papers. The only solution he ever offered was to fire the writer. He suggested I be fired many times. Naturally, no one took him seriously. (If he were to read this blog, he might have a stroke. But he’s probably dead now.) It would always be the little things like that.

Eventually I grew to the conviction that this wasn’t being Christian at all. Fun or not, there was no good excuse for such behavior and it had to go. So I repented and stopped.

I still annoy people, though.

Again, it’s for stuff I don’t expect. I’m either misunderstood, taken out of context, or the story gets passed around until it’s unrecognizable. When I taught junior high, I regularly had to meet with the principal about rumor control. Something I said in the classroom had got home, the parents were offended, and I sometimes had to spend hours explaining, “That’s not what I said,” or “That’s not in context.”

“Okay,” my principal said after one such meeting. “Just be careful what you say in the classroom.”

“I am careful,” I pointed out. “It doesn’t make any difference. The kids hear what they want to hear—whatever strikes them funny—or add their own attitudes to my statements, and the next thing I know I’m back in here.”

“Well…” she said. “Just be careful.”

That was as constructively helpful as she could be. It didn’t help me any. We still had further meetings. Some even had to include school board members.

Interpretation… has been a fruitful source of strife all the world over. No matter how explicit the [text], people will turn and twist the text to suit their own purposes. …Selfishness turns them blind, and by a use of the ambiguous middle they deceive themselves and seek to deceive the world and God. One golden rule is to accept the interpretation honestly put on the [text] by the party administering it. Another is to accept the interpretation of the weaker party, where there are two interpretations possible. Rejection of these two rules gives rise to strife and iniquity, which are rooted in untruthfulness. He who seeks truth alone easily follows the golden rule. He need not seek learned advice for interpretation.

—M.K. Gandhi,
The Story of My Experiments with Truth, ch. 17

Gandhi was talking about contracts, but I believe this can be properly applied to any conversations between civilized people.

In my experience, it also works this way: People are generally negative. Perhaps they’ve been burned too many times, or because most of the people they know are sarcastic and self-centered they assume everyone is going to start from that attitude. I think, for the most part, they’d be right.

What if they started from an opposite attitude? What if they assumed that everyone was attempting to be civil, and that any apparent rudeness (as opposed to obvious rudeness; let’s be realistic here) was simply an accident or their own misinterpretation?

Think there’d be less arguing?

I have found that, once I took that attitude, that I don’t get offended as often; and what’s more, I find that most people honestly didn’t mean to be rude. (That, or they took it back immediately after they realized that I was going to be civil to them.)

I’ve also found this silences gossips. When someone just has to tell me what another person said, the comment, “Perhaps they didn’t mean it that way” usually shuts them up. Because usually they weren’t there and don’t know how anyone said anything, they instantly realize they’re in no position to judge.

Unfortunately, there’s little that can be done about writing. People typically read what you’ve written in whatever tone they personally have. If, inside, they’re a really angry person, they’re going to read my stuff in a very angry tone. If they’re sarcastic, they’re gonna read it as if I’m the most sarcastic guy in the world. If they’re bitter, their bitterness is going to come out of my words. And there’s not a bloody thing I can do about it.

Read that last sentence a couple different ways and you’ll see what I mean. Read it angrily. Read it sarcastically. Now read it the way I meant it: with resignation. Note the differences.

Also unfortunately: Whenever I critique something, people are also going to automatically assume that I have the attitude they usually have when they’re arguing. They’re going to think I’m pissed. Angry. Furious. Screaming. Bitter. Insulting. Whiny. Take your pick. But those of you who have heard me Rant out loud know that I might raise my voice—not in anger, but because I’m loud—but that I usually have a grin on my face and that I usually end the Rants with “Aw, well, what’re you gonna do about it?”

Attitude is everything. Keep yours positive.

So much for my Sermon of the Day.

24 June 2005

Burning issues.

Currently the Congress is trying to pass an amendment that makes it possible for them to ban flag-burning. Now, I’m not a big fan of burning the U.S. flag, but I am a big fan of free speech, and I consider it very unpatriotic of these so-called Americans to chip away at the First Amendment simply because it personally offends them.

Besides, do you think it’ll stop flag-burning? Hardly. Flag-burners will consider it an unjust law and violate it on principle. As soon as that amendment is passed, I guarantee there will be flag-burning rallies, followed by useless mass arrests. I would much rather that the police spend their time rounding up drunk drivers, wife-beaters, shoplifters, con artists, drug-traffickers, gangsters, child-molesters, rapists, and murderers, than flag-burners. I don’t like them either; such behavior offends me. But just because I don’t like country music (which also offends me, aesthetically) doesn’t mean we should round up all the country musicians and run a steamroller over their CDs. I can ignore them, just like I ignore the flag-burners.

Another blog pointed out the futility of such an amendment with visual aids:

If the colors aren’t red, white, and blue, it’s not a U.S. flag. Right? So red, gray, and blue shouldn’t count.

Maybe you could replace all the stars with diamonds, or include an extra stripe or star—those aren’t U.S. flags either. True, burning such a flag will still annoy patriots; but it’s not the U.S. flag. So unless the amendment includes all flag-like objects, you’re not breaking any laws. And you get to annoy Congress members just as much.

Honestly—with all the tax money we’ll pay on enforcing this stupid amendment, we could be buying U.S. soldiers some decent body armor. The bill’s currently in the Senate. Go yell at your senator.

23 June 2005

The religion of politics.

Back when I taught school, we had a PE teacher who was a gung-ho patriot. Seriously gung-ho. She was ex-military; she had a giant American flag in her classroom, sang the National Anthem at all school functions, talked our principal into having our Grandparents Day theme be “Americana,” talked about how wonderful it was that we had a president who prayed (though I’m pretty sure they’re only one-way conversations), and got us to take a “missions trip” to Washington DC, where our “mission” would be to “pray over our national monuments, because I just believe in the power of prayer.” (So do I. I believe it’s so powerful that you don’t have to go someplace in order to pray over it. At least we helped out an inner-city church's VBS… for a day.)

Her patriotism made me uncomfortable. Not that I don’t love the United States and strongly approve of American ideals. It just reminded me of my own hyper-patriotic phase… back when I was heavily involved in the evil cult we know as the Republican Party. (Yes, I can sense every gung-ho Republican reader’s sphincter tightening as they read that.)

I was a College Republican. I was a member of the Young Americans for Freedom (Pat Buchanan’s club, back before he got even loonier and joined the Reform Party). I proudly wore T-shirts that showed Bill Clinton mugging the Statue of Liberty. I was a dittohead who bought both of Rush Limbaugh’s books. I called registered voters. I attended conventions, fundraisers, and campaign dinners. Yes, hard to imagine, but not so long ago I was an obnoxious arch-conservative.

What happened? I switched religions. I became Christian.

In the process of following Jesus, I came to the conclusion that one can’t serve both God and the party. Just as one can’t serve God and money (the love of which is the root of all kinds of evil), one can't serve God and political power (the love of which is also the root of all kinds of evil). And probably because I had the bad habit of confusing my patriotism with my politics, I’m going a bit too far in the other direction; but sometimes we have to do that if we wish to regain balance.

I’m still registered Republican… only because I honestly don’t care which party I’m in anymore. I still vote; sometimes for Republicans. I still think the president’s a shmuck, but I’m glad he beat John Kerry. My politics are no longer based on the party’s platform (just as the party’s actions are often based only on what is politically convenient); they’re based on what I think will serve humanity best, from my best understanding of God.

But, unlike the president, I admit I could be wrong. That’s not why I pray for him; I do that because God wants me to. But it certainly does give me something to pray for.

Anyway, here’s a fun little rant from Christianity Today that says what I said in a different way. Enjoy.

Currently listening to A.W. Tozer MP3s. Tozer fans can download more than 100 recorded sermons from here.

Today consisted of killing a day. I was waiting on email from a few people regarding fieldwork. In the meanwhile I slept, did some laundry, vacuumed the floor, tinkered with the Xanga page, poked around the internet for free MP3s (Amazon has a whole bunch of them, of mixed variety, here), found some amusing T-shirts online that I am too cheap to pay $15 apiece for, and ate a lot of bananas.

And thanks to that lack of work, I'm feeling squirrely already. It's like I had a Saturday on the wrong day. Maybe I'm suffering from workaholism again. Dammit!

The good news is that one of the calls was returned, so I know I should have my paperwork finished within the next week. I was hoping for this week, but hey—it's getting done.

22 June 2005

Why your church sucks.

I was recently pointed to John O’Keefe’s article, “10 Reasons Why Your Church Sucks,” which describes so many churches I’ve been to that it’s scary. Not all of them hit all 10, but many of them come pretty close.

I get this all the time (likely from people whose churches suck): “Church is not about whether you enjoy it. It’s not about you. It’s about God.” Wrong. It’s about God AND me AND everyone else. The word “church” implies “community.” It’s about Christians coming together to worship God in a way that he likes; and (as he’s pointed out to me) he expects us to enjoy worshiping him too. If we don’t enjoy church, it puts a dent in our relationship with God.

This is a bigger deal than the nay-sayers depict it; but that’s because they’re trying to justify their sucky services—which, when it comes down to it, suck because they’ve been corrupted by sin. Hey, all churches are corrupted somewhat by it. The church is made up of (redeemed) sinners. (I never understood why people act surprised when they discover this. “Hey, someone stole money from the offering plate!” What do you expect when you hand a full plate of free money down an aisle of strangers? It’s a miracle that people don’t dip into it more often. People have just become too used to the miracle. Oh well, mini-Rant over.)

The sad part is that you have people defending dead churches. Again, shorter: They’re defending death. There are some things that are indefensible, and we shouldn’t try to tackle them. Death is one of them. If you have a dead church, stop jabbering about how it’s Jesus’s church and the gates of hades can’t stand against it. If it’s dead, it’s already in hades. Either bring it back to life, or leave the dead to bury their dead and come follow Jesus… in a living church.

Stupid Internet Survey: My theological worldview.

What’s your theological worldview?

You scored as Emergent/Postmodern. You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don’t think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this.

Emergent/Postmodern96%
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan79%
Classical Liberal75%
Roman Catholic61%
Neo orthodox57%
Charismatic/Pentecostal57%
Reformed Evangelical54%
Modern Liberal29%
Fundamentalist25%

What’s your theological worldview?
created with QuizFarm.com.

How’d I score so low on Charismatic/Pentecostal? Maybe I’m not dogmatic enough.

Sometimes to beat the heat (’cause my dorm room faces the sun) I have to come to the air-conditioned sanctuary of my local Starbucks. It’s a 20-minute walk from campus, but it’s worth it.

And unlike other Starbucks, it has free wireless internet, so I bring my iBook. The rest of them are “T-Mobile HotSpots,” which means that T-Mobile will charge you $30 a month to get wireless internet from that location. That’s on top of any ISP charges you pay from home. Being cheap, that means I’m not going there when I have my iBook on me (which is fairly often).

Today it’s primarily to beat the heat, drink a frosty Frappuccino, and complain into my Xanga about why I’m still in the Santa Cruz area.

I’ve likely ranted about parts of this before… Part of the Teacher Education Program is fieldwork. This means I observe a high school classroom, teach a few lessons, do a small mountain of paperwork, and finish a sanity-snapping Teacher Performance Assessment for my professor.

This was supposed to start in September 2004. The program found me a class to observe then, but it was in Los Gatos. Without a car it was impossible for me to commute there. They found me another class in November, but the teacher never returned my calls. So I got an Incomplete in the class—until I could complete it in the spring semester.

My supervisor finally found me a teacher to observe… in April. Not January, April. I don’t blame her at all; sometimes these things can’t be helped. But I started three months late. My semester now extends three months into summer. At this point it feels like it’s swallowing up my whole summer. I was hoping to get a job, finally get that car, and spend time with my family. Instead, I’m in an uncomfortably warm dorm room with nothing to do but paperwork.

But wait—there’s more! On the up side, the school year here ends late—in mid-June instead of the first week of June—so I had some time to get some work in. Now school’s out. The paperwork’s not done… and the teacher appears to have dropped off the face of the earth. I can’t fault him for wanting to take a vacation, but I want to be done, dangit, and go home.

So I’m pretty frustrated right now. But the situation is out of my control. My options are to sit around here, sans job, and wait… or arrange to blow it off until August, which I’m not sure I can do. Plus there’s that job situation—who on earth is going to hire me to work for only two months? (And no, I am not going to lie about how long I can actually work there. I don’t do that.)

21 June 2005

Looking at the “podcast revolution” and Christian stereotypes.

In what little free time I’ve had, I’ve been poking around the existing podcasts on the internet. A lot of them strike me as the feeble attempts of people who were unable to get into radio.

I once worked at the student radio station at CSU Sacramento. I had a three-hour block every Friday at lunchtime. It was fun, but I wouldn’t want to do it every day. Once a week is cool. Every day… well, you’ve either got to be in love with the sound of your own voice, or you have producers to help you come up with content, or you’re playing top 15 hits all day. Out of pure laziness I used to do a “bootleg set”—play an entire CD—do my Media Law homework, and while I was at it, make my own bootleg tape. (Relax. I have since bought copies of those CDs. I was taking Media Law, after all.)

I’m a little tempted to create my own podcast… Just what the world needs: audio Rants. Well, maybe when I’m finished with this summer homework, I’ll experiment with it. Throw on some jazz, dig up my old sound effects CDs, babble like Happy Harry from Pump Up the Volume (without the profanity, naturally), and annoy my server with all the extra bandwidth from the two or three nerds who bother to download it. Ah, the podcasting revolution…

20 June 2005

“Be careful, little eyes, what you see…”

Slept a lot today. Somedays you just gotta.

Last night I was talking with Mom and the subject of Batman Begins came up, and since Mom often functions as my unofficial conscience (because I allow her to) she brought up the whole “being relevant” issue: Should I have seen this movie?

My usual response: Is it going to lead me to sin?

Am I going to have violent urges because of it? Does my approval of the movie glorify violence, vigilanteism, giving in to one’s darker urges? Am I really just encouraging billionaire trust-fund babies to decide to learn ninjutsu, wear black, and smack around criminals?

For me, no. I can watch a Batman movie without wanting to follow Batman’s example, just like I can read about King David in scripture and not want to do some of the dumber things he did. I came into the theater thinking one way, and left the theater thinking the same way. There’s no temptation there. (I checked.)

But there are some movies that do change your mind about things. When I saw The Passion of the Christ, I had a greater appreciation for Mary. When I saw The Last Temptation of Christ, I had a clearer understanding of what non-Christians think about Jesus’s divinity. When I saw Elf, I realized that Will Ferrell can actually be funny if you give him something to work with. Movies can change you; sometimes not for the better. (As a result of Elf, I saw Anchorman. Ugh.)

What movies have changed you—for the better, and for worse?

18 June 2005

My reactions to student preachers.

Church this morning… My attitude needs improving. As soon as I realized a student was preaching, my first thought was, “Good; I won’t need to take notes.”

Student preachers typically suffer from three problems:

  1. Exegetical disconnect. They have a point, and it’s not necessarily a bad one. But because they want their sermon to be biblically based, they felt obligated to find a verse to go along with their point. It doesn’t. In some cases, it’s a huge stretch to go from their point to the verse (or, if they want the illusion that their point comes from scripture, it’s a huge stretch to go from the verse to their point). In other cases, it might connect with one of the points, but they felt obligated to write a traditional three-point sermon and their other points are sloppy.
  2. Congregational disconnect. They have something they really want to preach on. It’s not necessarily what God’s dealing with in that particular church; but it’s the preachers’ favorite passage, or favorite sermon, or something they recently discovered from their favorite devotional. Often it’s highly theological in nature and they never bother to find a way to connect it to the congregation’s present needs.
  3. Spiritual disconnect. In the worst case, it’s not even something from God. It’s something that annoys the preacher, and it’s disguised as a “you’ve gotta stop sinning” sort of message that only deals with symptoms, and never the root causes of the problem. (You know—the sort of message that makes people think, “My neighbor really needed to hear that sermon.”) Root causes require the Holy Spirit’s insight, which is usually lacking from most sermons on holiness.

Whenever a student gets up to preach, I typically assume one of the three will take place. I’m typically correct. But it’s still a sucky attitude. I need to be looking for the pony, and instead I’m trying to identify which disconnect will be showing up in today’s sermon. (Today’s was number 1, with a little bit of number 3 thrown in, and there might be some number 2 if some of the ideas were taken from a certain worship song sung at the end of the service.) Note how I’ve spent all this time ranting about the disconnects instead of discussing the topic of the sermon and its relevance to my life.

Bad habits die hard.

Honoring Dad on Father’s Day.

Happy Father’s Day, to all you fathers out there.

Father’s Day is not a day I appreciate all that much because of my relationship—such as it is—with my father. Mom likes to call him “the sperm donor,” and unfortunately this is often my attitude (and my siblings’ attitude) about him too. Dad is simply one of those people who never should have had kids.

Fortunately, I never confused my relationship with my Father in heaven with my relationship with Dad. Many have, which is sad. But I always knew the two weren’t related; I suppose it’s because the contrast was so great.

To be fair, Dad had terrible examples as his parents. My grandparents had kids because “that’s what normal people do,” and Dad largely had that same attitude. But we kids were obstructions. We had to be clothed, and raised, and have shots and orthodontics, and smacked around if we got annoying or embarrassing.

Whenever I exhibited typical goofy kid behavior, Dad’s response was to “fix” me so that I’d “be normal, goddammit.” Once, when I was 10, I made the mistake of experimenting—in Dad’s presence—with swinging my arms together while I walked. I was just goofing, but the unfortunate result was that Dad spent the remainder of the evening on “walking lessons” on the back patio. (We didn’t know yet that I was bowlegged, which is why it took so long.) “Point your feet straight, goddammit,” he’d yell, and I would just cry in frustration, which made him more angry; and if he lost his patience then beatings would follow. Ah, quality time with Dad. Fortunately, the Air Force took him away a lot.

So you can see why I wouldn’t necessarily feel up to honoring him with Father’s Day. There’s not a lot to honor. He sucks as a father. To be fair, he doesn’t know any better; I can’t blame him for repeating his own lousy upbringing. I can learn from his mistakes and thank him for contributing half my DNA.

And I can appreciate that he still makes an effort to stay in touch with me: that he’ll still do quid pro quo favors for me sometimes; and that he’s given up trying to “fix” whatever habits I have that annoy him. (He also avoids drinking and saying “goddammit” in my presence, which I appreciate.) I’ve forgiven him for all the insanity I grew up with.

But I still don’t feel anything special or festive or nostalgic about Father’s Day. You can see why.

If you’re astounded because you’ve never heard Kerry mention any of this stuff, it’s because my parents separated when she was six, so she saw relatively little of it. Thank God.

I also realized this entry might invoke a lot of pity-responses. Please don’t offer one. As I’ve said before, I don’t rant to get sympathy; I rant to get things out of my system. It’s out. I’m done. Rant over.

But you can discuss all you like.

17 June 2005

Batman and I go ๐˜ธ๐˜ข๐˜บ back.

When I was a kid, I didn’t want to be a doctor or lawyer. I wanted to be Batman.
 
Kent’s Recommended Watch:
Christopher Nolan:
Batman Begins

Saw Batman Begins today. Thumb up. Much better than the previous movies (Tim Burton’s freakshows and Joel Shumacher’s camp spectacles). Obviously the screenwriters have been reading Frank Miller’s Batman: Year One.

I’m a Batman fan from way back; back when I was a kid and the cheesy Batman TV show aired every afternoon on TV20 in Hayward. You’d expect a kid named Kent to like Superman more (and let’s not overanalyze that I eventually got into journalism), but only an alien can be Superman. Anyone, with effort, plus a billion dollars, can be Batman. (And it helps to have an obnoxious teenage partner in a red suit to attract the gunfire away from you.)

The TV show got me into the comic books. Batman was a lot cooler in the comic books; it was during the time when DC Comics was trying to copy Marvel Comics and create more realism and less cheese. Thus, Batman was kicking some serious ass. My friend Greg and I got into playing Batman all the time—except I was a kid, so I was “Batboy,” and he didn’t want to be Robin, so he became “Superboy.” When “called upon,” Greg and I would duck behind my dad’s van and change into our “costumes” (masks, sweatshirts with copyright-infringed logos, and trash-bag capes) and come out to “save the day”—from nobody in particular—then change back into our “secret identities,” which to our suprise weren’t fooling anyone. (Hey, we were eight.)

I eventually grew out of playing Batman, but I was Batman for every Halloween until sixth grade. By then, I had grown to be annoyed with the TV show. It was funny in its own right; but I sometimes wished it pick some other character to lampoon. Like that bowhunting Batman rip-off the Green Arrow. Or Captain Marvel; that was half a lampoon in itself. (There used to be a Captain Marvel TV show on Saturday mornings, but I remember it was slow and boring.)

The thing that always bothered me about Batman was that it was ridiculously easy to figure out what his secret identity was. It’s the toys. Batman has all these fantastic toys—a Batmobile, a Batplane, a Batcopter, and the gadgets—so who’s bankrolling the guy? Simple—who’s the richest guy in Gotham City? That’d be Bruce Wayne. “Follow the money,” as Deep Throat once pointed out.

I was pretty jazzed when Tim Burton’s Batman came out; despite the awful dialogue, it was better than any other superhero movie had been to that point. (Seriously. Watch the Superman movies sometime. The scripts are just terrible.) The trouble had always been that the directors were never serious comic book fans. I think the first comic book fan to direct a superhero movie was actually Spider-Man’s Sam Raimi, which is why that series has turned out so great. Batman Begins was cool (and I hate to say this, being a Batman fan) but I gotta admit the Spider-Man films are still better.

Next movie to see: War of the Worlds. Spielberg rules.

On the nature of hell.

If you’ve never seen Dogma, the movie isn’t for the sensitive. The clip does contain one naughty word.

I found this outtake from Dogma in which Azrael discusses the nature of hell. I think it should have been left in. It’s the idea that hell is bad enough, but it’s made worse by the misery humans bring with them into it.

Speaking of hell… Having again read Perelandra by C.S. Lewis, I’ve noticed something I hadn’t earlier. Lewis, when he was trying to determine which direction he should come out of atheism, considered between Hinduism and Christianity (though I don’t know how seriously he considered Hinduism, being more familiar with Christianity), feeling that either one or the other was the most developed expression of God in the world. We all know he chose Christianity.

Interestingly, in his depictions of hell (in The Screwtape Letters, in The Great Divorce, in Perelandra and That Hideous Strength) it resembles a form of pantheism. All human wills are absorbed into the overarching will of the devil; all personality is lost; the human is absorbed into the Nothing.

Kind of like Hinduism.

Lewis never comes out and says this about Hinduism, of course. But I wonder if he didn’t consider Hinduism to be the devil’s best effort at coming up with a counter-religion; and since the devil lacks creativity, it has to be based on conditions that the devil is familiar with. Hm?

Or perhaps I’m overanalyzing things again.

16 June 2005

Alanis Morissette at Starbucks.

Kent’s Recommended Listen:

Alanis Morissette:
Jagged Little Pill (Acoustic)

S’weird… I was in Starbucks the other day, doing homework, escaping the heat, and using up the Starbucks card that my brother had given me for my birthday. Their music service is plugging the new Alanis Morissette album… which is actually the old Alanis Morissette album, Jagged Little Pill (which I’m currently listening to), only now it’s acoustic, and only available through Starbucks until July.

I got to hear all the tracks except “You Oughta Know,” because God forbid you should take your kids into a Starbucks and they overhear, “And are you thinking of me when you…” as you’re waiting for your Frappuccino. So I haven’t heard the acoustic version of that track yet, but I bet it’s a little less angry now that she’s 10 years older.

I like the acoustic album, but I would feel odd buying it. I already have it, you see; I have the old non-acoustic version. It’s like buying the Special Director’s Edition DVD when you already own the regular version. You’re paying full-price for extras. In this case, you’re paying full-price for less; and I actually like the electric version. But I find this interesting: Alanis gets all the fun and money of a new release without having to create anything. And you know there’ll be suckers buying it.

More whining about homework.

I am really, really tired of homework. If you haven’t been keeping up, this is, for me, the Semester that Will Not Die. Because my fieldwork started in April instead of January, and because it’s somehow blended together with my summer school class, it feels like I have been doing nonstop school since January. (Unless you count Spring Break and Chad’s wedding as holidays, which I don’t.)

I want to be done, dangit. I want a job. Yet how on earth am I going to get a job in Vacaville when I have to be back in Santa Cruz in mid-August? People don’t just hire you for two months unless you’re taking low-paying temp work or you lie about how long you’ll stay at that job—two options I don’t want.

Well, I’ll consider this tomorrow. Likely I’ll go see Batman Begins in between Frappuccinos.

Amusing comic strip: “The Good Samaritan.”


Sutton Impact by Ward Sutton.

14 June 2005

Thoughts on what the “emerging church” ๐˜ด๐˜ฉ๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜ญ๐˜ฅ be.

“Emergent” means people that engage the world, not people who sell out to it.

Currently playing: Tommy Bailey’s podcast. It’s not very good.

I was watching some video recently on podcasts and decided to check the Web to see if any were worth listening to. This guy’s abstract suggested that he would be worth my time. He’s really not.

Apparently he’s recently discovered Richard Foster. I love Foster’s stuff, but I’m not a big fan of people who gush about other people’s books. The way some people get into a lather about the latest devotional they’ve read, you’d think the Second Coming came early. Anyway, this dude’s on a mission to spread the gospel of Richard Foster… and since he likes Moby and Relevant magazine, he thinks he’s emergent.

If you don’t know what “emergent” or “the emerging church” is, it’s one of the latest Christian fads. It’s meant to be a discussion about how the church can speak to the wider culture. Christianity is largely a subculture in America; people outside the subculture have no clue about what’s going on in it. Many, fr’instance, have no clue who Rick Warren is, have never heard a Third Day song, and think Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell speak for all Evangelicals because they don’t know of any others. This is because Christians have so successfully isolated our endeavors that we go beneath the radar… and then we blame the regular media for not knowing about it because of its “anti-Christian bias.” Thus, we are to emerge from the subculture and dialogue with the wider culture. We’re to deal with it, work with it, fuse our stuff together with it, and try to bring about positive change in it. It can be argued that popular culture is the cesspool it is because the Christians abandoned it; this must be undone.

But a lot of Christians are using the “emergent” fad as an excuse to absorb all they can of the ickier aspects of the wider culture. Fr’instance, in the church we have people who are too immature to watch certain TV shows or movies, or listen to certain bands, without having these things greatly affect them in negative ways. Yet they’re watching these shows or listening to this music with the excuse, “But I have to know what’s going on in our culture if I’m going to relevantly speak to it!”

That would be a good argument… if they actually spoke to our culture about Jesus. But it’s more likely they’ll speak to our culture only about South Park. If Jesus ever comes up, it’ll only be because he made a funny comment on his talk show, and that’s the extent of the Jesus discussion. For many a Christian, this “emergent” discussion is an excuse to immerse their minds in the very things that they should be avoiding (or at least analyzing instead of mindlessly absorbing).

12 June 2005

What’s left of the ๐˜‹๐˜ช๐˜ข๐˜ญ๐˜ฐ๐˜จ.

Long, long ago I used to put together the Bethany College Dialog and the Dialog’s website. Took me hours; I was just then learning how HTML worked. Now, casually poking around the web, I find there’s nothing left of it but my introduction to the website, which had to be taken down because some AG twit back east got his panties in a twist over the word “boobs.” But not before Rev. Tony snatched it. (There is no more website, by the way.)

If you don’t know what the Dialog is, it’s the Bethany College student newspaper. If you didn’t know Bethany College had a student newspaper, that’s because last year the editor dropped the ball. Talk to him about it.

I became editor by stumbling into it. I had been editor of the Solano College Tempest, an assistant editor-in-chief at the CSU Sacramento State Hornet, and my previous job had been production editor at The Dixon Newspaper. Now that I was back at school, I figured I could help out at the campus newspaper. So I stopped by, met him, and offered to help.

Soon after, the editor realized he couldn’t devote enough time to the paper, so he stepped down and gave the job to his assistant. The assistant decided he couldn’t devote enough time to it either. But he wanted the scholarship that goes along with the job, so he offered me the job of “co-editor.” I would edit the copy and attend the Senate meetings, he would do layout, and we’d split the title and scholarship. He soon discovered that I was much faster at layout and editing than he was, and that I had an “unreasonable” work ethic—I wouldn’t stop working on the paper until it was done. (It’s an old habit I picked up from being a professional.) So he quit too… but he still asked for his cut of the scholarship. We pro-rated it. It wasn’t a big sum then, but every little bit helps.

Next semester, I scared the crap out of my tiny newspaper staff by announcing that the Dialog was going to become a weekly.

“We don’t have enough news,” they argued.

“Yes we do,” I argued back; “we just haven’t been covering it.”

Stupid Internet Survey: What age do you act?

What age do you act?

You are 22 Years Old.

22

Under 12:You are a kid at heart. You still have an optimistic life view—and you look at the world with awe.
13-19:You are a teenager at heart. You question authority and are still trying to find your place in this world.
20-29:You are a twentysomething at heart. You feel excited about what’s to come… love, work, and new experiences.
30-39:You are a thirtysomething at heart. You’ve had a taste of success and true love, but you want more!
40+:You are a mature adult. You’ve been through most of the ups and downs of life already. Now you get to sit back and relax.

What age do you act?
created with Blogthings.

I think I act younger than 22.

10 June 2005

The temptations of an egomaniac.

My allergies are gone!… but my stigmata’s acting up again. Dammit!

Hopefully I can get the fieldwork stuff done this week, since the public school’s year is up very soon.

Yes, I have a new profile picture. As to what profile pictures usually represent, click here. Mine usually represent that I like to manipulate photos; I think the fact that I’ve been picking a lot of Matrix photos lately indicates a God-complex of some sort.

So I was on the San Jose to Santa Cruz bus this evening and I overheard some kid talking to the bus driver about Christianity. I don’t think his goal was to evangelize the driver or anything; he was mainly chatting about his experience at a youth camp, and about his hypocritical, racist grandfather.

For some reason, I developed an attitude—an unhealthy one—that I understood more about Christianity and theology than this kid did; that he was getting minor points wrong; and who was he, anyway?

…But why on earth was I having this attitude? Where’d that come from? What rational grounds did I have for being bothered by this kid? Who am I, anyway?

This is a very typical form of temptation for us egomaniacs: Irrational, arrogant pride. For what reason? None; since when does temptation need to have a reason? Most temptations don’t. They appeal to our emotions. Reason only comes into it when we try to rationalize why we should give in to them, or try to come up with a good excuse for why we gave in to them.

I had no reason to be annoyed at anyone—and, recognizing this, I was able to recognize the temptation for what it was and resist it.

It’s things like this that make me keep my brain turned on.

08 June 2005

What is it with the ๐˜•๐˜ข๐˜ฑ๐˜ฐ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ ๐˜‹๐˜บ๐˜ฏ๐˜ข๐˜ฎ๐˜ช๐˜ต๐˜ฆ quotes?

Kent’s Recommended Watch:

Terry Jones & Terry Gilliam:
Monty Python and the Holy Grail

My favorite movie is Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I’ve seen it a ridiculous number of times. I can quote several scenes from memory. I don’t, because that can be annoying.

My family doesn’t realize this, which is why they quote Napoleon Dynamite so often. (Well, Shannon doesn’t. But she has no sense of humor anyway.)

Why I play “Drunk/Not drunk.”

There’s a fun little game I like to play every once in a while when watching local TV news, called “Drunk/Not drunk.” Basically, I guess whether the newsreaders are drunk based on speech inflections, dilated pupils, how hysterical their laughter gets at the “amusing” news segments, and gestures. It’s easier to play when you’re watching Monterey stations because the Sacramento and San Francisco newsreaders appear fairly sober.

I started it back in the early ’90s when Lloyd Lindsey Young was the weather guy on Sacramento’s channel 31. The man looked and sounded as if he had 10 shots in him. I don’t know if he ever did; maybe I’m inadvertently making fun of a stroke victim. But at the time many of the other people on the show appeared drunk, and from the rumors I heard from the station’s interns (who went to CSU Sacramento with me) they were at least stoned. (Or maybe that was just the interns.)

It’s easy to play the “Drunk/not drunk” game with reporters because I was one for more than a decade. Drinking is very popular with reporters, especially when they cover events with an open bar. (You want to guarantee your event is covered? Tell the newspaper that there’s an open bar. That’s often how I got reporters to cover society functions.) In college there were also a lot of stoners; but nowadays newspapers and TV stations make their staff take urine tests. And nobody tests urine for alcohol.

The newest way for reporters to cover their rampant alcoholism nowadays is to be a “wine connoisseur.” If you have a huge stash of wine you’re a “collector,” it’s cheaper than tequila, and Daddy doesn’t have to hide his drinking from the children anymore.

But most people who catch me playing “Drunk/Not drunk” assume I’m only kidding.

Looking for someone’s final resting place? www.findagrave.com

05 June 2005

From my life’s soundtrack, 3.

During lunch at Cafรฉ Bethany…

SHE: “Opposites attract, you know.”
ME: “No wonder every woman I’ve dated has turned out to be the devil.”

Time to overanalyze “Thank You.”


Some Christian songs don’t just suck because they’re cheesy. They suck because they’re heresy.

In 1992 or 1993 or sometime around then, Ray Boltz came to my church for a concert, and my mother dragged me to it. It was awful. I sat through two songs, then went out to sleep in the car rather than listen to any more of that crap.

People of my mother’s generation are uniformly startled when I refer to shmaltzy Christian music as crap. I can think of certain other Anglo-Saxon adjectives I’d like to call it, but simply calling it crap makes them question my commitment to God. They figure, “How dare he critique music that’s so heartfelt, so meant to glorify God…?” I dare because if it was meant to glorify God, it would be worship songs; and even if it is meant to glorify God, it should at least stand up to close theological scrutiny.

Here’s Boltz’s “Thank You,” the song that triggered this rant, which I was forced to endure four times for the kindergarten graduation. A parent picked the song. It sorta goes without saying that she’s a baby boomer.

How about getting off of these antibiotics
How about stopping eating when I’m filled up
How about them transparent dangling carrots
How about that ever elusive kudo…

No, wait, Boltz’s “Thank You,” not Alanis Morisette’s “Thank U.”

I dreamed I went to heaven
And you were there with me
We walked upon the streets of gold
Beside the crystal sea…

04 June 2005

Graduating kindergartners.

Yesterday: Helped Kerry put together her school’s kindergarten graduation. It was quite elaborate, complete with little red and blue caps and gowns for some 75 six-year-olds who have successfully finished their first year of school.

They’re gonna be really bummed when they discover they don’t do this every year.

Charles Colson is annoying me.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

03 June 2005

Meeting a marked woman.

Some guys figure a ring will secure a long-distance relationship girlfriend.

I was chatting with someone I know from church yesterday, who is graduating from high school next week, and she is already engaged. Engaged? Yes indeedy. Her steady boyfriend of six months decided to pop the question.

I thought she had planned to go to college. She still is. Was he going to the same school? No. Did they set a date? No.

“I see,” I replied. “So he’s marking his territory.”

“What does that mean?” she asked.

When my sister Shannon graduated from high school, back in 1990, she was headed for Solano College and her then-boyfriend was joining the Marines. So he proposed. That way, other guys would see the ring and not hit on his woman, while he went far, far away and tried to hang on to the relationship from there.

Guys pull this sort of crap all the time. The guys don’t want to deal with the possibility that the relationship is over—that it was just a high school thing, or a college thing—so they make a last desperate grab with a proposal. I know three Bethany students with off-campus fiancรฉs and no wedding dates. They’ve been marked, and will stay marked until they or their fiancรฉs face reality. (In one case, I’m pretty sure she did the marking. He calls once a month. Does that sound like commitment to you?)

If you love somebody, set them free!

Anyway, she was offended by this description, as any person in denial would be. I told her she could prove me wrong if she could get her fiancรฉ to set a date—I wasn’t picky; he could pick an indefinite time like “summer 2009” if he wanted—but he should have plans. (But now that I think of it, a four-year engagement doesn’t sound appropriate either. What business does anyone have demanding that another person wait years for them? Get married already.)

Amusingly enough, she said she will get him to pick a date. How nice… she feels she has to prove something to me, an acquaintance she knows casually. Ah, denial.

02 June 2005

Dealing with telemarketers: Try honesty.

I decided to put off going to Santa Cruz for a few days. I need to get there eventually… likely next week. Meanwhile, this has been a nice little mini-vacation.

Mom gets a lot of telemarketer calls. I just registered her on the do-not-call registry. Everyone seems to want her to refinance her mortgage (even though—and probably because—she recently paid it off) or wants me to refinance my college loans.

Anyway, I picked up the phone one morning and was greeted by, “Mr. Leslie?”

“Yes.”

“We’re from [some mortgage company]. Do you own your home?”

“No,” I said truthfully. “I pay rent.”

“Oh. Well, we’re sorry to bother you.” And he hung up.

“You’re gonna have to have me answer all those types of calls,” I told Mom later.