Dear Abby, Is it possible to be a great academic and a great husband/father? Help!

Dear Abby,

A belated Happy Thanksgiving. I apologize if this comes across as Bob Bummer, but I'm really frustrated and need to run some thoughts by someone.

Do you think it's possible to pursue the life of the mind, either in formal academia or as a non-academic but intellectual author (i.e. Philip Yancey), while doing a great job raising kids and maintaining an excellent marriage?

Here are the factors that are influencing this question:

• I'm leery of The Cult of Childhood--the glorification of childhood and the belief that kids take priority regardless of the impact on the parents' marriage--which has now become the American cultural norm. I've seen this firsthand. My brother and I always took priority over my parents' relationship. I'm obviously grateful for the time, energy, and money my parents poured into our lives, but it harmed their marriage for many, many years. It wasn't until my brother was in college and I was mid-way through high school that they seemed to have loved each other again. (Which was cool to see!)
• I wasn't only the youngest kid in the family, but also the youngest kid in my parents' friend group. So I've never spent time around kids. This will sound evil, but hopefully you'll appreciate the honesty: I really, really cannot stand being around kids. They stress me out and constantly annoy me. (*By kids I mean those younger than, say, 10. After that I start to like 'em.)
• My physical limitations and learning disability pose a serious challenge. Physically, I have a generic respiratory condition that causes me to be much more prone to sickness. Consequently, I have to sleep a lot to stay healthy. I cannot suck it up and average four hours of sleep like you hear about young parents doing. As for my LD, my reading rate is roughly 1/3 the rate of my peers, it takes me a long time to process thoughts, I have to be borderline obsessive in maintaining a train of thought from beginning to end (meaning I can't be interrupted), and I must have absolute silence to think, read, and study. Good luck doing any of that with kids!
• Most married men I know who are in academia don't also have wives who want to be academics. The typical model I see is that the husband pursues a career while the wife stays home and raises the kids. I wouldn't have this luxury as my wife also wants to get a Ph.D. She aspires to be a college professor. While this is seriously awesome as far as having someone I can bounce my thoughts off of, I don't see how this would work out in terms of children. (I know of one professor whose wife presently has more education than he does, but she's currently a stay-at-home mom. I don't know how that will work out in terms of getting a position after a decade out of the academic world.)
• I'm not saying they don't exist, but I'm yet to meet a top-notch academic who has simultaneously 1) maintained an excellent marriage, 2) been a great mother/father, 3) vigorously pursued their studies, and 4) really took care of their body. Some have managed to pull off a hat trick, but I've heard horror stories on what they did to their bodies to pull it off.
  

The past couple days have driven me nuts. All of my wife's siblings now have kids, so my Thanksgiving vacation was essentially a two day incarceration in a daycare facility. All intelligent conversation in years past has been supplanted by conversations about diaper prices/features, laughing about the children's hyperactive antics, and an infinite amount baby talk. When I tried to get away and watch a TV show, it was interrupted by annoying kid movies. (This happened twice and they didn't ask me if it was okay either time. It apparently doesn't occur to parents/grandparents that a person might be in the middle of a program he or her likes. The children always take priority.) Everything, and I do mean everything, is based around the children--meals, games, conversations, car trips, walks, sleep schedules, etc. Whenever I tried to start up a meaningful conversation with anyone, they ran off just when it was getting good to save a baby from falling down the stairs, comforting a toddler who was crying, or putting a grumpy kid in timeout. I used to look forward to conversations with my brother-in-law, who is a really intelligent lawyer. The conversation could go anywhere and everywhere. It was often the highlight of my month. The best we can muster now is five minutes of (censored) youtube videos before the bloodhound toddlers sniff out our location. No one wants to do anything fun that involves getting out of the house and, for the love of all that is good and holy, I cannot get away from the noise and activity. Over the past two days I have to have spent at least 12 hours trying to read John Franke's Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context. I've made it through maybe 10 pages and comprehended maybe 75% of 4 sentences. I tried to write a blog post, but couldn't produce a cogent paragraph to save my life. And if I would've hopped in the car to find some peace and quiet, I would've been deemed anti-social.

As I'm coming up on my 25th birthday and will have been married about three and a half years, I've been thinking about the logistics of having kids. Figuring that each kid produces roughly a 10-year span of the aforementioned mindless activities, and depending on the number of kids and how far apart they're spaced out, this stuff would probably last anywhere from 10-20 years. (Sweet son of a!) So it seems my the options are either 1) be a crappy husband/father, 2) give up any sort of serious thinking for 1-2 decades until the kid(s) grow(s) up, or 3) not have kids... Am I missing something?

Please understand that I don't look with condescension on people who have kids, nor am I saying that their sacrifices aren't worth it. The vast majority of people value kids above all else and being as procreation is necessary for the continuation of the human race, that's probably a good thing. I'm just looking at this from the perspective of a married guy whose wife might someday want to have kids and who wants to seriously engage the life of the mind. I'm not prescribing this position for most couples, but if it ultimately comes down to a question of valuing kids or the life of the mind more, for me the life of the mind wins. What I'm trying to figure out is if my thinking is premised upon a false dichotomy. That is, I'm trying to see if there's some way for these two worlds to be compatible that I'm not seeing.

Seriously, I'm not just venting. This is an honest question.

-- Frustrated in TN

What Do I Value?

I've been thinking about all the things that fill people's time. I'm sure there's infinitely more items and sub-items that could be put on such a list, but here's what I came up with off the top of my head:

Marriage, sex, kids, family, friends, working, reading, writing, discussion, debate, painting, drawing, sculpting, music, poetry, acting, performing music, attending concerts, dancing, TV, movies, video games, websites, school, hunting, fishing, hiking, mountain climbing, camping, car, houses, yards, planting trees, cleaning, poverty relief, soup kitchens, mentoring, church boards, practicing, swimming, school boards, PTAs, city councils, neighborhood watch, pro-life clinics, traveling, sports, cards, racing, working out, jogging, making money, saving money, sleeping, guns, computers, pets, drugs, smoking, praying, worshiping, studying religious texts, preaching, teaching, politics, fashion, eating, cooking, clubs, family trees, star gazing, gossip, missions trips, administration, inventing, academic pursuits, career building, networking, shopping, and doing nothing at all like the dude from Office Space.

What has prompted these thoughts? When my wife and I got married, we still had three years of college to go. Figuring out how to spend my time wasn't hard. Marriage, school, work, and my spiritual life took priority. Entertainment, friends, family, art, and keeping healthy more or less got the shaft. It was simple as that.

Things have gotten significantly more complicated in an entirely unexpected way since graduating this past spring. I've been working a full-time position at the college's food service provider. With only one job and no classes, homework, extracurricular events, nor student ministries, I felt free. I had these grandiose ideas of the things I'd accomplish with all my spare time. I'd invest in my marriage, pay down my debt, improve my relationship with God, develop my writing, read classic works of literature as well as history, theology, anthropology and basketball, get plugged in at church, get back in shape, spend more time with friends and mentors, reconnect with family, start drawing again, build at least one friendship with someone who isn't a Christian, explore the region, attend concerts and sporting events, volunteer at the local pro-life clinic, get caught up on the movies I'd missed, watch a few more NBA, NFL, and MLB games, and so forth. Some of these I've accomplished. Others are a work in progress. More than a few I've simply failed at.

Part of my failure is because I'm reaping the consequences of excelling in college. Long story short, I've had life-long health issues that I ignored while overworking myself for three years. Ran myself straight into the ground. Consequently, my body has basically given out the past couple months, resulting in all sorts of weird symptoms, numerous infections, and severe, ongoing fatigue. Hard to get much of anything besides work done when you're sleeping 12+ hours a day just to barely function. (Note to self: Don't do that again.) The other problem is, as they say, there just aren't enough hours in the day. For all my good intentions, the simple reality is there's just no way to do all the things I want to... All of which brings me back to the simple question of values.

Last night a TFC prof updated his facebook status. It said, "'We do what we value, not what we believe.' Interesting quote. Needs to be qualified, but generally agree." Yep, I'd say that's about right. So, what do I value? What should I value? Assessing my life in light of that quote and these questions, I become uncomfortably aware that there is a discrepancy between my beliefs and my values. Not so much in the hypocritical, blatant sinning while talking a good game ala Ted Haggard sort of way, but in the sense that my beliefs about what is important in this world don't necessarily correspond with my values. And also, therefore, the way in which I live out my life.

I'm just not as intentional with my time as I ought to be. Generally speaking, I've uncritically bought into our culture's exaggerated felt need for relaxation and entertainment. I spend too much time putzing around on the internet when I should be drawing and listening to music. I've watched too many movies--even good, artistic, thought-provoking movies--when I should be out hanging with people who aren't Christians. I stay awake too late on Friday nights, which prevents me from volunteering on Saturdays. I could continue, but the point is made. Of course, there's a whole other way to look at this discrepancy. Rather than the American approach of continually drinking more caffeine while relaxing less and doing more, or working harder and faster, maybe I shouldn't value some of the things that I do, or at least not as much as I do.

While engaged in discussions of politics, I've often put the question to people whether they're thinking and behaving more as christian Americans than as American Christians. I'm starting to apply this question to myself in terms of my values. My wife and I would probably be classified as lower-middle class in this country, yet relatively few in people history have even dreamed of the sort of lifestyle that we live. I'm trying to get a different perspective beyond that of my own affluent, capitalistic society. Maybe some things that genuinely are good and have intrinsic worth don't need to be values I wish to personally live out. I feel like I live in a society that has watched Dead Poets Society too many times. I've been taught to, and have just plain bought into, this existential philosophy that tells me I have to experience everything that is good in order to truly live. Carpe diem, right? I'm beginning to think that's bunk. Thoroughly uplifting and motivational bunk, but bunk nonetheless. Instead of trying to do and experience everything that is good, maybe I should instead be intentional about living according to a select few values that accord with my beliefs. Maybe less is more.

If that is the correct approach, I come back to the issue of values. Perhaps the question should not be "What do I value?", but "What should my values be?" or "What do I value most?"

"How can he be a dude and be God?": Getting Outside of the Christian Bubble

I'm a little ashamed to admit this, but I've never really shared my faith with non-Christians in any sort of evangelistic way, much less led anyone to the Lord. Back when I was a nominal Christian as a freshmen and sophomore in high school, of course I wasn't talking about God. When I got serious about my faith around junior year, I became a raging fundamentalist and withdrew from the evil "secular world" for fear of its corrosive influence. The last five years were spent in various christian bubbles: Cokato, MN, Moody Bible Institute, Toccoa Falls College. The good news is I'm finally in a place where I feel like I could share my faith without repelling them like OFF! Deep Woods. After graduation I hoped to build relations with people who definitively do not profess faith in Christ and hopefully share the Gospel.

A few months back I started to get that opportunity. I've gotten to know a guy who definitively does not claim to be a Christian. He grew up outside the Bible Belt in what sounds like a religiously apathetic home. I determined to build a relationship with him, pray for him, and share my faith only if there was a golden opportunity. I wasn't going to press the issue with some sort of awkward, memorized evangelistic spiel (See: Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort). While I wasn't going to shy away from those sorts of conversation, I wanted to make sure it happened naturally and without me forcing the issue.

It took about 30 minutes.

The first time we hung out, he brought up Christianity and asked me to explain some things to him. I was a little caught off guard, but excited. I had no idea what he would say or what he'd ask. First thing he wanted to know was about Jesus. OK. How's that for jumpin' straight into the thick of it. I sat there for a second trying to figure out where to start. Jesus died on the cross to save people? Jesus is love? Jesus was born to a virgin and... He cut in and asked me,

What's this about Jesus and God? What's the connection?

Jesus is God.

Jesus is God?

Yes.

How can he be a dude and be God?

Sweet goodness, that's a good question. It would take a bit to explain.

Eh, forget about it. But what about the other God?

What other God?

You know, the cloud, the vapor, the mist. The pissed off God who tells the Jews to kill everyone. The one who busted 'em outta Egypt. The one who hates everyone but Jews.

Oh, that's God the Father.

God the what now?

Father.

What the hell does that mean?

He's God, too.

God the Father. So God did the humpty hump and there came Jesus?

Hysterical laughter.

So you Christians believe in multiple gods?

No, one God. Three persons.

Huh?

It's called the Trinity.

So, what? Pops turns into a dude then jets back up to heaven and becomes the mist again?

(More hysterical laughter. Stomach hurting.)

No, they're distinct persons, but still one God.

Like people born with two heads? 'Cuz that's gross. Seriously.

(Trying desperately not to describe the Trinity as the knights who say, "Ni!")

More like an egg. There's the shell, the white, and the yolk, but it's still one egg.

K. You've got me on the shell and white, but what the hell is the yolk?

Actually, who, not what. It's the Holy Spirit.

So the yolk, Casper the friendly ghost, is the third 'person' besides Pops and dude?

Yeah, that's about right.

He leaned back in his seat. With a grin and in a perfectly cordial tone, he declared,

You're all a bunch of fuckin' weirdos if you ask me. No offense.

None taken.

You know, you're one of the few devout Christian I've met who isn't a hypocritical, self-righteous dick. Believe fuckin' weird shit, but you're not a dick.

Uhhhhh, thanks?

Yeah, don't mention it.

There was a lull in the conversation for about five minutes as we watched TV. I prayed to myself about whether I should try to share more. Didn't feel right about it. So I figured the conversation was done when he blurts out,

You're not the typical, cheapass used car salesman type.

What?

All those arrogant dicks. I treat 'em nice 'cuz I have to but they're always trying to press their beliefs on me.

I'm not denying what you're saying, but it could also be that they care about you. You know they believe in heaven and hell, right? Maybe they're concerned about your eternal well-being.

Nah, I don't think that's it. Least not most of 'em. I always feel like they're trying to press it on me with these cheesy gimmicks.

What do you mean?

Like, they got these weird things they hand out and leave around. On your windshield. One time I was taking a leak at a gas station and looked up and saw one. Seriously? Above a urinal? C'mon guys.

They probably figure you got a few moments to think.

He laughed.

They say shit like, "If you died tonight, do you know where you'd go?" Pictures of flames on one side and clouds on the other. Burning forever or listening to naked baby angels play harps. Don't know which is supposed to be hell.

(Laughing so hard I neared wizzed myself, I managed to get out...)

They're evangelistic tracts. Supposed to be a simple way of bringing up spiritual, eternal things and getting people to think. Conversation starters as much as anything.

I smiled to myself. I felt kind of like 007, except without the women, shooting, tricked out Aston Martin, or the laser watch. OK, really not like Bond at all except the espionage. Still, that part was fun. It was like I was spying on the Bible thumpers, reporting back to him with top secret data. He, on the other hand, was so serious I thought he'd missed my recon. Clearly not M.

But it's not only them. No matter what I bring up, they bring it back to God. I'm tryin' to be nice, so I talk about the weather. They talk about the all-powerful God who makes it rain. I talk about the sports, they bring up which athletes are Christians. It's hopeless with these people. Conversation starters? More like conversation killers.

(Amidst my reconsideration that maybe he was M...)

That's hilarious.

It's irritating as hell.

More than a little irony in that.

He laughed.

How do you deal with 'em?

I don't know if I should tell you this, but honestly, most of 'em annoy me, too. I love 'em, but I have zero desire to hang out with them. I always want to get into stuff real deep, but they always tell me that it's too intellectual and that I need to love God with my heart.

So if you doubt, you lost your faith, right?

Bingo.

Like I said, used car salesmen. All of 'em. Keep it simple. Make the sale. Don't talk about the leaking gasket or the broken radio.

Laughed more.

I'll tell you one thing. This world is too fucked up for the "believe in Jesus and you'll be saved" stuff I see in those... what'd you call 'em? Tracts?

Yeah, tracts.

I wouldn't want this simplistic stuff. If I was gonna be a Christian, it damn well better answer my hard questions. Too many of 'em are retarded.

Didn't say anything. Just kind of sat there lamenting the truth in what he was saying.

They bullshit you, all the time. That's why I like you. They talk about "fellowship" this and "community" that. So why do they talk so much shit about each other behind each other's backs? Lying pussies.

I sat there amazed by his keen insight, wishing I could deny his observations or write them off as uncommon. He seemed contemplative. We sat there quiet. Again, after a minute he starts up again,

They're always talking about "being set apart."

I just smiled.

They tell me that earth is not our home. What the fuck?!

Laughing.

They tell me they're not of this world. Seriously? WHERE THE HELL ARE THEY FROM, MARS?!?

Took about 10 minutes for me to explain what they meant by all this.

Well, why don't they say it like that? I still think that three-way God thing is weird, but that makes sense. They just sound like they're in a cult. Brainwashed into saying stupid shit.

And so ended one of my favorite conversations that I've had in years. My goodness it was refreshing. It was nothing short of phenomenal to hear someone who wasn't talking in christianese and to hear him talk about God amidst a flurry of profanity. There was something there that I really liked. It was irreverent and without the least bit of pretension or condescension. More than anything, it was honest.

Evangelicalism: I Finally Get It! (Swany, I hate you)

For three years I've been trying to figure out my relationship to this nebulous thing called "evangelicalism." I've spent countless hours reading out it, thinking about it, and writing about it. It was like a person doing a Rubix's Cube who doesn't know the solution/secret of how you do it. I kept twisting it and turning it, trying over and over; always feeling like I was getting closer, but I could never get the thing to work quite right. I just couldn't figure it out, but neither could I give up. Dang competitive nature. Then, about five minutes ago, a buddy of mine nailed it.

The part really ticks me off is that this isn't even the topic he was really writing about. He was just using it as analogy for something something. Jerk.

He wrote, "If we define evangelicalism theologically the terms is nonsensical as you have often made the case. But if we define it historically, it becomes descriptive." That's it. That's how I look at evangelicalism, but have been unable to articulate. I'm not big on labels in order to find a sense of identity, but I do like descriptive terms. The term "evangelicalism" describes the characteristics of a historic movement of which I am a part--a movement that is but one chapter in the narrative of Church history--but I would not call myself an "evangelical." An evangelical Christian? Yes. The difference being that evangelical is the adjective rather than the noun.

Exegesis of Facebook Comments, Holistic Christianity, and the Importance of Hermeneutics

* I dedicate this post to Pastor Mike Newsom, the man who taught me the term "hermeneutics," instilled in me its infinite value for rightly discerning the Word of God, and refused to call it "principles of interpretation"--insisting instead that we high schoolers needed to learn those big word. Thank you.

A lot of people talk about how facebook and other social networking sites are destroying our society's ability to have relationships. I understand that concern, but I cannot disagree more. In my case, facebook has not only enabled me to maintain relationships with friends who are now scattered around the globe, but it has also enabled me to "meet" a lot of other people whom I would not otherwise have ever had contact with. Some of these people have actually played a fairly significant role in my spiritual and cognitive development. When I post something that I've been thinking about or working through, I love that I can get feedback from and generate discussion between such varied people as a conservative Southern Baptist from Alabama, a moderate agnostic from Chicago, a liberal Roman Catholic from California, and a pastor who disdains labels who grew up in England and now lives in South Africa. Technology is awesome.

This past summer I wrote a blog post and imported it into facebook. The comments came in fast. Some people thought I was off my rocker, others were intrigued by a perspective they'd not heard before, and a couple of people were enthusiastically supportive. When most of the "conversation" died down, only a few people remained. Since the post pertained to a theological matter, the conversation turned to hermeneutics--principles of interpretation--after one of the guys charged me with trying to turn the Bible into a book for the academic elite alone. He said that any literate person should be able to read God's Word and understand its meaning without an awareness of any of the historical background and certainly without knowing hermeneutics, that Christians' eyes have been opened by the Holy Spirit, which enables them to understand the things of God.

How do you respond to a guy like that? I mean, seriously, he was well-intentioned and dearly loved the Lord. No doubt about it. In his mind, he was fighting for the role of God's Word in the devotional lives of Christians all around the world. While being highly educated himself, he didn't want Holy Scripture to be relegated to the ivory towers of academia. My general sense was that he was both right and wrong. True, any literate Christian should be able to read the Bible, understand its basic meaning, and benefit from the spiritual nourishment that it brings. The key to that statement, however, is the word "basic."

I have worn glasses or contacts since the third grade. I'm nearly blind as a bat and have to wear corrective lenses to drive legally. Now imagine there were an emergency and I had to get to a place immediately. Say my glasses were broken, I was out of contacts, and there was no one to drive me. Would I be able to drive? Sure, I can see enough to see general shapes and what not, so I could probably get there alright, but that sure wouldn't be the safest thing in the world. My contacts sharpen and clarify everything I see. They help me to safely and comfortably live out my life, but technically they're not absolutely essential. I wouldn't die without them. Well, a basic theological training, and training in hermeneutics particular, is like my contacts. I got the general gist of the Bible's teachings long before learning these things, but everything was blurry. Hermeneutics made everything much clearer. I feel much more comfortable driving theologically, if you will.

Going back to this conservative dude, I sent him private messages trying to explain my view. He wasn't having it. Since he was a graduate student, I thought he might be more likely to respond to someone with a Ph.D, so I privately contacted the other person in our discussion, Dr. Donald Williams. I asked him if he wouldn't mind trying to simply lay out what the basic hermeneutical principles are and why they're important. He did a fine job explaining these things, but this conservative dude was not budging from his position. He finally sent me a private message saying (paraphrasing slightly), "All his hermeneutics mumbo jumbo is ridiculous. The meaning of texts are obvious if you just read them. Besides, there really cannot be that much to study and figure out." I'd tried reasoning with him and speaking to him from my heart. Both proved fruitless. It was time to bust out the satire.

In response to Dr. Williams' hermeneutical principles, I commented, "I might quibble with a point or two ;), but by in large I think this last series of posts is money." Then I spent the next six paragraphs exegeting it:

"Now, in order to understand what the author meant by the above statement, one must understand proper hermeneutics. First, the genre of the text is personal, informal correspondence through a digital medium. Second, during this period in history the names 'Carson' and 'Donald' referred to males. This is confirmed by the profile pictures, which, if accurate, portray a young Caucasian male in his mid-20s and an older Caucasian male in his late 50s. The attire worn by 'Carson' was that worn by a person who had successfully completed his education, or 'graduated,' from an academic institution. This suggests that he was educated.

During this period, there was a patriarchal tradition of maintaining the male's surname. We may therefore guess that Donald Williams was not Carson Clark's father. However, it is possible that he may be an uncle or perhaps a step-father. Any other potential relationships are unknown. Other theories have been presented by scholars in the field, but there simply is not enough textual evidence to substantiate a claim. Third, when the author says that he 'might quibble with a point or two... but by in large I think this series is money,' he means that he might have a small disagreement over a minor issue. That is, Carson agrees with the vast majority of Donald's writing but may hold a difference of opinion over a few minute details.

Fourth, the semi-colon followed by a right parenthesis is something of hieroglyphic that came into popularity in the late 20th and early 21st century with the advent of the Internet and cellular phones. Accordingly, this is not an actual word, but is a symbol that visually appears to be what was at that time known as a "wink." In Western society during the early 21st century, a wink often conveyed secret, personal knowledge (otherwise known as 'an inside joke') shared by two persons in a light-hearted manner. Thus, we are to understand by this semi-colon, right parenthesis combination that there was prior personal interaction or other correspondence between the two parties that is being referenced. Like Paul's actual second letter to the Corinthians, this knowledge appears lost forever.

Fifth, the term 'money' must be explored. During that time, money was a means of currency by which a person purchased goods or services. It is an archaic term that was, within the next hundred years, phased out in favor of the term 'credit card,' which was itself eventually shortened to today's mere 'credit.' The reader must understand that this text was written before two crucial developments, one moral and one economic: 1) These uncivilized barbarians were still cutting down trees. They would then slice them into thin, malleable sheets called 'paper,' which then had a substance called 'ink' poured on it. This created paper currency was called 'money.' It was only a slightly more sophisticated version of the salt blocks used in bartering within the ancient Mesopotamian world; 2) In the same way that the 'gold standard' had been abolished some years 60-90 years earlier, so 'money' was abolished in favor of pure credit. People during this time still had the ancient, if superstitious, belief that a person could 'save up' and 'spend carefully' in order to 'get out of debt,' meaning the elimination of all their credit.

We know better today. People are always in debt. Economic principles apply equally to the largest of organizations just as they do to individuals. Just like the continental governments, all people are continually in debt. It is only a matter of how much. But at this point in history, their philosophical belief system caused them to deny this simple fact. Finally, stemming from African American urban culture of the mid to late 20th century, a cultural and linguistic sub-set of English called 'Ebonics' that emphasized slang expressions came into popularity. (*It should be noted that some linguists have argued this was its own derivative language.) It gained such widespread usage that even non-African Americans would use certain of its terms. They were especially known for using terms that had long since lost their popularity within African American communities. In this way, Caucasians' use of ebonics remained continually out of date by well over a decade. Carson's use of the term helps us date this digital text to approximately 2009, plus or minus a couple years. During the mid-1990s, ebonics frequently used the slang term 'money' in reference to that society's praise of affluence. Thus, in this context, the slang term 'money' was often used to praise and congratulate. Carson was praising Donald's writing.

In sum, what Carson was saying to Donald is this: 'While I agree with the majority of your comments, there are a few minor issues with which I would disagree. Nevertheless, they are not worth exploring more thoroughly as they are such of such minute significance. I commend you on your well written posts.' "

Fortunately, it worked. This dude sent me a message in which he basically said, "I never really understood how there could be so much complexity. With us being nearly two millennia removed from the biblical authors, I'm starting to see how we need to understand their world in order to understand what they wrote, not to mention their use of the language itself." Mission accomplished.

One of the things that concerns me most about our churches today is how common this guy's former perspective is. It's probably even the norm. We've divided our human nature into these artificial categories--physical, emotional, cognitive, spiritual--and then read those categories back into both our faith and our view of the Bible. We tell people that one of the "spiritual disciplines" is Bible reading. We think it's a book that is first and foremost meant to address our "spiritual lives." We pit "head knowledge" against "heart knowledge," then tell people that when they read Scripture it should transform their hearts. When we read the Bible, we expect God to speak to us through this sort of mystical spiritual experience. It seems that at every possible opportunity we take shots at those who are concerned about approaching the Bible cognitively, calling them "elitists" and endlessly condemning their efforts to worship God with their minds as "cold, dead, intellectual religion." And we never consider the fact that serious cognitive activity is an essential part of the holistic christian experience and of a relationship with God. Throw in our cultural presuppositions of individualism, pragmatism, and a continual accommodation to the lowest common denominator (by which I mean the cultural expectation for educated people to use simpler words rather than expecting uneducated people to learn new words), and you've got a perfect recipe for anti-intellectual spirituality. It's little wonder that the typical Christian in this country not only detests hermeneutics, but finds the term itself to be pretentious, which is why so many Bible colleges are renaming the course "Principles of Interpretation."

Well, at least one more person now sees the value of hermeneutics. I can only hope that this blog post will encourage a few more folks to go in that direction.

How to Kill Your Credibility: Step 1) Cite Sarah Palin as a Brilliant Woman...

This evening I was watching a clip from Larry King's interview with Carrie Prejean and was genuinely starting to feel compassion for her. I can imagine that the media's attacks have been relentless after she openly and honestly shared her conservative beliefs regarding homosexuality. While being moderate myself, I can see the legitimacy of her criticism that there is a double standard in American media. Honestly, I think she undermined her own argument a bit by downplaying the rhetoric used by conservative political pundits. (The militant tenor of figures like Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow is certainly equaled by such conservative counterparts as Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck.) Yet I think Prejean is absolutely right about the content. If O'Reilly or Beck said the same sort of things about liberal women that Olbermann does about conservative women, the outcry would be immense. Political correctness is certainly on the side of liberal ideology these days. For that reason, I felt sympathy for the intense scrutiny Prejean has faced after publicly making a non-PC remark. Really did. Then she started to back up her position.

Prejean likened herself to other brilliant women who've come under attack for their conservative convictions. Just from this few minute clip, I'd suggest that she's stretching the definition of "brilliant" in this parallel, but fine. I won't argue semantics. Then she cited Sarah Palin as an example of such a brilliant woman. Seriously, Palin? This is the woman who told Katie Couric that her state's proximity to Russia gave her foreign policy experience. When asked what specific resources she reads to stay up on current events, she didn't say the New York Times, The Economist, The Wallstreet Journal, TIME, or Newsweek. Nope. She said, "All of 'em." So either she's brilliant beyond imagination and reads every single current event magazine, newspaper, and journal in the country, or she's a lying moron who couldn't cite a single one. And let's not forget her rambling, incoherent, completely illogical explanations of her positions...

Prejean's comment breaks down on two critical points. First, Sarah Palin's appeal is not in her astuteness, but her status as an attractive woman who holds to both moral and fiscal conservatism as well as her willingness to stand her ground amidst criticism. If Prejean is going to favorably compare herself to another woman's attributes, it's going to me important to make sure she cites the right ones. That would be like someone running for Congress comparing himself to Michael Jordan in terms of family values. Second, the media didn't go after Palin because of her conservative convictions. They went after her because we were facing the frightening scenario of having an absolute moron being one heart attack away from the most powerful office in the world. I don't doubt that Prejean is, like Palin, a well-intentioned conservative who has come under media scrutiny. But that's not all there is here. There's that minor issue of exactly why the media was so harsh and whether or not that sharp criticism was warranted. Anyone who has watched the Couric interview knows that it clearly was in Palin's case. By likening herself to Palin, Carrie Prejean immediately lost all sympathy from me. Talk about a credibility killer.

I have a feeling someone will say, "Palin is not dumb like you're making her out to be" or will say that I'm exaggerating. Watch for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbg6hF0nShQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gk8moOxzlGQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npUMUASwaec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfV8U16OkL0

Irony in Germany: Capitalism's Berlin Wall

This fall marks the 20th anniversary of the Berlin Wall coming down. It would be hard to overstate the significance of that event. It marked not only the beginning of the end of east-west Cold War tensions, but also the unification of a German people who had remained divided since Allied forces brought down Nazi Germany. In a very real way, one could see it as the true conclusion of WWII. There was finally peace in central Europe.

To celebrate this historic anniversary, the city of Berlin will be hosting the "Festival of Freedom" this coming Monday, November 9th. Yet the celebration has already begun. This week MTV hosted a goodwill concert featuring U2 right outside of the Brandenburg Gate. Minor problem: Although it was free, there were a limited number of tickets being distributed by MTV. Just as one would expect for a concert celebrating such a monumental event, more people showed up to the concert than had tickets. But MTV was not about to let just anyone see the performance. This was a ticket-only event and they wanted to keep their ratings up, so what did they do? Constructed a 12 foot high fence preventing people from getting in or watching from afar. I love the way the Associate Press described people's reaction: "Both Berliners and tourists alike saw the irony in building a wall around a concert dedicated to the wall that has already come down."

You've just got to love capitalism and the greed of corporations. MTV's wall points to the worst of the capitalist economic system. It reminds me of when I see "NBA Cares" TV commercials featuring ridiculously wealthy athletes, whose off-court conduct can only be described as menacing, talking about how important it is to give back to the community. I think to myself, 'Bull crap. The only thing the NBA cares about is its bottom line.' The only reason the NBA cares about "giving back to the community" is because its reputation among middle and upper-class communities--which is clearly the target demographic of those commercials--is in the toilet. The community perception is that it's a league of overpaid thugs. In the end of the '90s and the first few years of this decade, that reputation was finally hitting the owners in the pocketbook. They knew that to keep making money it was absolutely essential to reform their imagine, so they started donating time and money to building computer labs in schools, restoring YMCAs and Boy & Girls Clubs, and having players who might otherwise go a year without picking up a book read to kids and preach about the important of literacy. My favorite NBA Cares commercial was the one where Shawn Kemp, a man with an infamous reputation for being unable to keep his zipper up after fathering seven illegitimate kids with six women, talked about the importance of strong families. Give me a break. Good things come of these efforts, but I question the sincerity of their motives.

The reason businesses like MTV, the NBA, and all the rest do these charitable events has nothing to do with altruism and has everything to do with greed. The reality is that it's just a giant marketing campaign. It's funny that making their customers think they actually care about more than dollars and cents does wonders for their long-term economic viability. If there goal were simply to help people, why not just do it and not announce it? It seems to me that MTV's Berlin Wall gives precious insight into capitalism's nasty underbelly.

Last year a truly extraordinary Russian author, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, died at the age of 89. He was a Soviet commander in WWII who was later imprisoned, interrogated, and served nearly a decade doing hard labor all for a letter he wrote to a friend questioning Joseph Stalin's leadership. After completing his sentence he was exiled to Kazakhstan, a Soviet providence where many political prisoners were sent. While there he almost died of cancer, which had quickly spread because of the inadequate treatment he had received during his imprisonment. Afterward surviving the ordeal, he went through a period of psychological, philosophical, and religious transformation that culminated in his winning the Nobel Peace Prize in Literature for this scathing critiques of the suppressive status of Russian society under the Soviet Union. For his efforts he was exiled from his beloved country and was stripped of his citizenship. He ended up spending nearly 20 years in the United States before going back to Russia in 1994. Solzhenitsyn was never one to be pegged, however. Shortly after his arrival in the U.S., he stood before an audience that expected him to commend Americans for their great society and extol the virtues of democracy and capitalism. Instead, he gave a now famous speech in which he blasted the weaknesses and excesses of Western society. Solzhenitsyn basically pulled a Han Solo in front of Harvard, telling them, "Don't get cocky, kid." Leave it to a Russian author to kick Americans in the butt when they're expecting to get their butts kissed.

I truly wish that there was a German Alexander Solzhenitsyn. I would love to hear the insights of an older man (or woman) who grew up under communist Germany and has spent the latter half of his/her life living within a democratic and capitalistic Germany. I would love to hear someone like that contrasting life under communism against it under democracy. We so often assume that our way of life is wholly superior to that of other people, but I would love to hear a Solzhenitsyn-like critique of the way our economic and government systems have been detrimental to their society. Most of us have heard that when the wall went down, the first two companies to move in were McDonald's and Playboy. I have no idea is that's true, but even if it's just an urban legend it still speaks to corruption wrought by our "freedom." I would love to hear someone talk about that.

The first Berlin Wall was a powerful symbol of the suppression of the German people's freedom. It seems to me that this second Berlin Wall was a powerful symbol of our economic system's exploitation of freedom within the Western world as well as a reminder of capitalism's insidious pitfalls that we don't care to think about.