Welcome to my blog.Thoughts on life, faith, and how it all fits together. |
The Real Cost of a (Good) Shoebox (7/11/18) First things first: Yes, shoeboxes can potentially disrupt the local economy. This isn’t so much a concern in developed nations, but if you go to a small African village where a few people make their living selling things, then flood the market with stuff, you could put them out of business. That said, I’m sure Samaritan’s Purse doesn’t just go into new places, particularly areas that might be hostile to foreign missionaries, with no warning or permission. They work with local churches and organizations, and if someone said, Thanks, but no thanks, we’re sure you mean well but this could really hurt us here, they would probably honor that and maybe find another way to help. Also, I think it’s worth noting that in any given area, there’s going to be a limited number of shoeboxes with a limited amount of stuff inside, some of which, like soap, is going to get used up fairly quickly and some of which, like many of the toys, may not even be available locally. And then, if the children who receive these boxes are orphans, refugees, or truly poverty-stricken, chances are they and their families or caretakers wouldn’t be able to contribute much to the economy anyway. If you do decide to pack a box, the first thing you have to realize is that you have no idea where it will end up or who will get it. You don’t know anything about their preferences, their culture, whether they need flip flops or a hat and mittens, whether they live on the street in a big city or in some remote village. You don’t even know for certain whether your box will go to the intended age or gender, because if they have too many of one category and not enough of another, you may very well end up with a fourteen-year-old boy getting a box meant for an eight-year-old girl, or a eight-year-old girl getting a box for a four-year-old boy. Not everything can be gender neutral, and that’s fine. I packed Lisa Frank, My Little Pony, and princess coloring books, balls, cups, and washcloths for girls and superhero ones for boys. Girls got jump ropes and a sewing kit, and boys got toy cars, marbles, and a screwdriver. I have no doubt there are some kids who wouldn’t care either way, but I wasn’t about to pack a box full of pink stuff for a boy just to prove a point (even though pink used to be considered a boy color and may still be in other countries). When it comes down to it, if you do your best to put together a good box filled with quality practical items and toys any child would like, the recipient will likely appreciate it even if it wasn’t exactly packed with them in mind. My boxes tended to be more on the practical side, with school supplies, hygiene items, socks, and flashlights first, then a few fun things that are more or less universally recognizable. The following is far from a comprehensive list, but it does include a lot of things I thought were good choices. Breakdown by age and gender: Boy/Girl, 5-9 Boy/Girl, 10-14 Expected Total for 6 Boxes Other things worth mentioning: Dollar stores may be good for simple items like balls and coloring books, but there are some things you should not go cheap on. If you choose to pack sunglasses, make sure they have full UV protection, or they will cause eye damage. Also, make sure everything is of decent quality and won’t break easily. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you and don’t pack anything you would be embarassed to give a friend or a friend’s child. Take stuff out of the packaging, especially if it includes the price. Not only does it same a lot of space, but a lot of developing nations don’t have garbage disposal systems like we’re used to. The only things I kept in the original packaging were the harmonicas, because they just came in a small box, and the screwdriver, because I thought the bit might fall out otherwise and the box wasn’t stuffed full. I was going to add the fabric ribbons for the girls just on the rolls, but taking them off and rolling them up saved a lot of space. I’ve sees a lot of people recommending plastic shoeboxes, but others say the cardboard ones from Samaritan’s Purse actually hold up better in transit, so I went with those. They seem a bit smaller than the plastic ones, but with some careful arranging and rubber bands, it wasn’t hard to fit everything inside. I also included some extra rubber bands inside the boxes, though I learned this probably wasn’t necessary since they usually tape the boxes around the middle after checking them at the collection/distribution centers. That’s why you want to put the labels closer to one end of the boxes instead of right in the center, so they won’t get covered up. Finally, if you decide the cost is too much and want to find a more effective way to give, consider checking out Donorsee. It’s like a charitable version of GoFundMe, where aid workers around the world post important projects, including food, water, medical, and housing needs, as well as ways to help people start their own businesses so they can support themselves and their families. Some projects cost as little at $25, and after they’re funded, there are usually photo and/or video updates on how the money was used so you can see how you made a difference. |
A review of VeggieTales’ Saint Nicholas: A Story of Joyful Giving (7/8/18) First, I feel the need to point out that, “I got this DVD for free in exchange for an honest review. The back cover says ___. I liked it,” does not constitute an actual review, but I came across a lot of posts like this while I was looking for an honest, detailed review of this movie to see if anyone else agreed with my take on it. So I decided to write my own. The Plot Then Laura’s dad drives up to Gus’ auto shop with his truck smoking and sputtering and says he has to get his packages delivered or else. Naturally, Gus asks, “You want me to work Christmas Eve?” and insists on being paid double, in advance, in cash. So Mr. Carrot might lose his job, and also they might not be able to get a Christmas tree now. So, what’s wrong with this picture? It’s Christmas Eve. Already dark, the stars are brightly shining, Christmas Eve. Granted, it might only be like four o’clock, but still. Why is Gus just closing up now, and why does he need cash? It’s 2009. Can he not take credit or debit cards? Why is Mr. Carrot delivering mail at night? Why has everyone apparently waited until the very last minute to send their Christmas presents? Why have they waited until late Christmas Eve to get a tree? With everyone in town apparently in such a giving mood, I have to wonder why no one steps up now and offers a simple solution. Like, Hey, neighbor, I’ve got a truck you could borrow for the night. Instead, Junior says that maybe Santa could bring Mr. Carrot a new truck, and Bob feels the need to ask what everyone thinks Christmas is about. Unsurprisingly, the kids are all focused on Santa and presents. It takes a hint from Larry to remind them about Jesus, leading Junior to ask what Santa actually has to do with baby Jesus. So Bob launches into the story of Nicholas. The real story begins in third-century Turkey, which was part of Greece at the time. Nicholas came from a wealthy family and his parents raised him to be a strong Christian. After they died in an epidemic, he decided to give away all his money to help the poor and dedicate his life to serving God. He became the Bishop of Myra while he was still young and became known for his generosity, his love for children, and his concern for sailors. The VeggieTales version begins in ancient Greece, with no explanation about it being modern-day Turkey. And Nicholas is kind of, actually really, annoying. I suppose it’s understandable that he wants to go fishing with his dad rather than go to church, which to VeggieTales’ credit is explained to be a gathering at their house as was customary in the third century, but it really seems like he doesn’t even try to understand why his parents like helping others. Even when his father tries to explain how we’re supposed to be fishers of men and God’s hands and feet on Earth and how great it is to help others, Nicholas is completely self-centered, worrying about how they’re going to have enough if they give everything away. So, it’s already been established that they’re rich and they have their own fishing business. True, everything we have ultimately belongs to God and He will provide for us, but it’s not as if they’re going to run out of money anytime soon, especially by giving away some fish. Now the villain is named Gustav, who apparently also runs his own fishing business, and he’s unreasonably offended by Nicholas’ father helping the family of a leek or something he just fired by giving them free fish. From a business standpoint, it’s not like Gustav is losing business as a result, because the family didn’t have any money, so they couldn’t buy anything from him to begin with, and he just fired the guy, so it’s not like this is someone who would having been willing to work for him for next to nothing if he had no other choice. Gustav pretends to be concerned for Nicholas’ parents like they’re going to go broke giving everything away, but if anything, he should be encouraging them to do just that. They go broke, they go into debt, they have to sell their business and work for him, he has less competition and some new employees, it’s like the perfect outcome from Gustav’s point of view. That night, Nicholas’ parents go help someone who’s gotten sick, leading them to get sick as well and die. Then we get a visit from Gustav and a group of poor people who apparently don’t care that Nicholas’ parents just died and he might need a bit of space. One of Gustav’s henchmen steals what must be the only basket of fish in the house, and Nicholas apparently doesn’t have any money on hand, so he panics and boards a ship heading far away. After some time, he ends up in Bethlehem, where a nun explains that she helps others because of what God did for us. Lesson learned, Nicholas comes home to find that everything is run by Gustav, who has outlawed giving and made everything miserable. Why? Again, it doesn’t cost him anything, and he should know that people generally don’t work harder or more productively when they’re living in abject poverty with no hope of improvement. The daughters of Gustav’s former employee are caught giving away toys and will go to jail if they can’t pay the fee, so Nicholas and his servant Octavius sneak around in disguise at night to help them, while Larry adds more and more elements to make the story feel more Christmassy, until it kind of feels like Santa Claus is Coming to Town. Back in the town square, everyone in town pitches in to help Laura’s family and Gus learns about giving and fixes the truck in what must be record time. And the Carrots get their tree. Brian Roberts said this episode was hard to write given the lack of information on the real St. Nicholas, but that might be a matter of opinion. The real story Now, this doesn’t exactly make for the most child-friendly story, but there must be a way to do it without adding a ton of contrived conflict. How about, instead of making Nicholas a self-centered kid who doesn’t care about the poor and needs a change of heart, acknowledge that he was already a Christian and already followed his parents’ example in caring about the poor. So he’s already learned the lesson about giving, but there is another lesson here, one that even fits the title. How about a story about giving joyfully, persisting in good works even when nothing seems to come of it. How about acknowledging that yes, life is hard, bad things happen to good people, and just because someone is a Christian who tries to do the right thing and follow God doesn’t mean that life will always be easy. As an adult, Nicholas and other believers suffered great persecution under Rome, being exiled and imprisoned while actual criminals were allowed to roam free because there just wasn’t enough room in the prisons for them. He was a bishop, which was a pretty big deal, serving God, and things were still hard. Who knows if, as a child, the death of his parents might not have resulted in a crisis of faith where he was forced to decide if he would continue to follow God despite difficulty or just give up and seek what comfort he could in the vast wealth he had inherited. Instead of a veggie version of Burgermeister Meisterburger outlawing giving for no good reason, let’s talk about the general unfairness of life and the temptation to ignore others’ suffering and live selfishly. Maybe simplify the story of the poor family to, they were deeply in debt and if they couldn’t pay, the girls would all have to get really hard jobs far from home. Still easy enough for a child to understand, and considerably less confusing. |
Four Poems (6/6/18) An Original Character The Deadline Claude Monet’s The Cart. Snow-covered road at Honfleur, 1867 Relativity As I race to get my homework done, The clock stops ticking now and then. I wonder if I’ve lost my mind. Wait a minute—an hour’s gone, Work for hours and minutes pass. |
Religion, Spirituality, and Blind Faith (5/27/18) A poorly drawn oversimplification of faith: Apathetic religion. This is easy. Just join a church. Any church will do, but preferably one steeped in tradition. Bonus points if you go more than twice a year. Extra bonus points if you go every week. A basic understanding of theology is good, but not particularly necessary. Just try to look the part and say the right words, then go home and live however you want. Take a cursory glance at the ten commandments and conclude that you’re alright with God because after all, you’ve never done anything really bad. Extreme religion. Read the Bible every day. Read all the commentaries. Memorize long passages. Pray constantly. Fast regularly. Witness to everyone you come into contact with. Invite them to church. Serve in at least two ministries. Immerse yourself in Christian culture. Denounce anything worldly. Do everything you can and pray it’s enough. (Secretly wonder if it’s worth it. Why are you doing this to yourself? Have your faith profoundly shaken when you realize that God won’t make all your problems go away even when you do everything right. Realize that the world is not the cold, dark, lonely place your parents/pastor/friends made it out to be. Start doubting and finding holes in their other arguments for faith. Look at all the hypocrisy in the church. Conclude that you can be good enough and much happier without religion.) At one end of the spectrum, you have religion without faith, where someone can know a lot about God without actually knowing Him. Here we have people either going through the motions of faith out of respect for tradition or desperately trying to earn God’s favor by their works, which is fairly absurd when you think about it. God loves us. He died for us. He is no doubt happy when we succeed. But I think it’s safe to say that the all-powerful Creator of the universe is not particularly impressed by even our best efforts.
To several subjects. Heaven hath my empty words, Whilst my invention, hearing not my tongue, Anchors on Isabel. Heaven in my mouth, As if I did but only chew His name, And in my heart the strong and swelling evil Of my conception. Measure for Measure, Act 2, Scene 4 Apathetic spirituality. Similar to apathetic religion. Just tell yourself you’re a good person according to your own standards, and ignore anyone who tries to impose their morality on you. Think about how nice and loving and compassionate you are. Look at the progress you’ve made in overcoming your flaws. Compare yourself favorably to others. Conclude that you’re good enough. Extreme spirituality. Go vegan. Do yoga. Meditate. Take pride in how mindful and conscious and enlightened you are. Go to church for the welcoming community and positive atmosphere. Highlight all the promises of God in the Bible and declare them over your life like good luck charms while ignoring the commands, warnings, and anything that doesn’t make perfect sense to you. Don’t concern yourself with theology or sound doctrine. (Have your faith profoundly shaken when you realize that God won’t make all your problems go away because you believe really hard. Realize your faith has no logical basis. Realize that the church has issues, and there are much nicer, more positive and encouraging communities out there, which won’t ask you to get up early on Sundays or agree with things you’re not sure you believe in.) On the other end of the spectrum, you have spirituality without truth, where everything is relative, morality is subjective, and someone can feel like they’re just fine when they’re anything but.
The comfortably denominational. When someone introduces themselves as Baptist/Methodist/Presbyterian/whatever, rather than simply Christian. Neither hopeful nor hopeless, this could mean anything. They could become more and more complacent and apathetic about faith, or they might get bored and look for something more, either choosing to grow in their faith with a more well-rounded understanding of the truth, or heading off into the extreme that better suits their preferences. In any case, an unbalanced faith is easy to tear down, often leading people to conclude, “Blind faith isn’t for me.” This bugs me. Because on one hand, it’s true. Blind faith isn’t for anyone, and since we live in the information age, there’s no need for it. The problem is, usually by the time people come to the conclusion that their faith is built on a foundation that’s either flawed or altogether non-existent, they tear the whole thing down at once, then never quite get around to rebuilding. The ideal. We need a relationship built on truth that doesn’t change regardless of our circumstances or emotions. We need to read the Bible and pray and live with the constant awareness that God is with us and for us and has things to say to us. We need to practice and develop spiritual disciplines without reducing faith to a checklist. While someone here won’t necessarily coast through life on a constant spiritual high, they generally won’t get too far off track. |
A review of Narnia: The Musical (5/13/18) First, we all know that the Chronicles of Narnia have a lot of Christian elements, and The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe is clearly the story of the gospel, so there’s an expectation that any faithful adaptation wouldn’t minimize that. And while the musical does have its good points, at times you can get the sense that it downplays the character and role of Aslan. He’s still in charge, and the beavers do sing a whole song about him, but it doesn’t exactly have the same impact as his introduction in the book. In the book, when the beavers quote the prophecy, “Wrong will be right, when Aslan comes in sight,” it’s clear that he’s the one everyone’s been waiting for, who will destroy the Witch and end the winter. Then the part about “Adam’s flesh and Adam’s bone” kind of feels like an afterthought. The children’s appearance in Narnia is a sign of hope that the Witch’s reign is coming to an end and the catalyst that sets everything going, but when all is said and done, it’s not really about them. If they had really just wanted to get their brother back and go home right after their coronation, I’m sure Narnia could have managed perfectly well without them. They stay and rule as kings and queens because they actually want to, not because some arbitrary prophecy is telling them they have to. In contrast, the musical really puts the emphasis on the Pevensie children and how Narnia and Aslan need them to fulfill the prophecy. We interrupt this review to bring you some theological rambling: That’s not how prophecy works. Prophecy isn’t just some wise old sage or mystic speaking magic words to make something come to pass. A true prophecy is when an all-knowing creator, whether God or, in a work of fiction, the author, steps in to give the creation a heads-up about what’s about to happen and how everything is going to play out, because the creator knows the creation better than it knows itself, including the strengths, weaknesses, and desires of everyone involved and how they would react in any given circumstance. Prophecy can come in the form of conditional “if-then” statements, promises of future blessings or warnings to change course, when the creator knows that the creation will listen, or insight into what will definitely happen based on the creator’s plan and foreknowledge of choices that will definitely be made. So while it is possible for conditional prophecies to be averted, you can’t simply force the fulfillment of a genuine prophecy by manipulating people or circumstances. It will happen, or it won’t, but if you have to bend over backwards in order to make it happen, either the timing isn’t right or it’s a false prophecy. And now, back to the review. After Edmund is rescued, he seems genuinely sorry for what he’s done and wants to know what he can do to fix things. Then we get a song that begins, “From the inside out, there the answer lies,” and Aslan concludes, “As I have told the others, I can only take you so far. You must find the way yourself.” And yes, we should take personal responsibility for our actions and keep trying to do what’s right, but from a theological standpoint, well...please don’t take your theology from stage adaptations of children’s books. From a theological standpoint, we understand that we can try our best to fix things but ultimately, we can’t. There’s nothing we can do to undo all the damage we’ve done, so then our response should be one of gratitude for what God has already done for us, not an attempt to earn forgiveness on our own. In the musical, Aslan basically says, “Look inside yourself and you’ll figure it out,” and even though Edmund witnesses his sacrifice later, at this point, all he knows is that Aslan’s people got him back from the Witch but they don’t really like or trust him, his siblings won’t really give him a chance, and it’s entirely up to him to change. That’s not exactly helpful, so it should come as no surprise that he doesn’t experience a complete reformation and his relationship with the others isn’t instantly fixed. Then there’s Lucy. If you’ve ever flipped through a book of baby names, you may know that Lucy means light, which is appropriate. Lucy is the youngest and first to discover Narnia. In the books, she isn’t perfect, but she is a symbol of child-like faith and trust and innocence and basically everything that is good and sweet and pure. In the musical, she’s a brat. She is the stereotypical annoying little sister, who’s probably been spoiled by Mom and Dad because she’s the baby of the family. And it may depend a bit on how the characters are played, but generally I really root for Edmund here. So it’s established in the beginning that the children at visiting their uncle (yes, they made the professor their uncle in this version) because of the war, and while the others are singing about the fascinating architectural features of Marpleton Manor, Edmund makes it clear that he just wants to go home, which is completely understandable. And we have our first example of Lucy being a brat, because she thinks he’s just being stupid. Because, yeah, Peter, Susan, and the professor acknowledge in the opening lines that there’s some cause for concern because there’s a war going on and air raids in London and their parents are still there, but let’s all sing a cheery song about doors and windows now because there’s symbolism and apparently Lucy is too young to really understand what’s going on. Then Lucy and Edmund go through the wardrobe to Narnia. They go their separate ways, Edmund meets the Witch, Lucy meets Tumnus, and then Peter and Susan just happen to stumble into Narnia. So here we have one of the major differences as far as plot is concerned: the circumstances around Edmund’s betrayal and Lucy’s reaction. Some versions have Edmund tell the Witch that he saw Lucy go off with a faun (which doesn’t really make sense as he’d already gone off to explore a bit on his own, and if he did see them, why wouldn’t he stop his sister from going off with a stranger?), but it looks like this is just a case of improvisation. And when the Witch asks, he tells her that Peter and Susan are back in England. And I feel like it’s worth pointing out that this is not Edmund’s betrayal. We know that he isn’t a particularly nice character at this point and the Witch is flattering and tempting him and as things progress, his motives are hardly pure, but at this point in the musical, he hasn’t really done anything yet. Since he and Lucy came to Narnia together, he hasn’t even had a chance to laugh at her for going on about make believe worlds. At this point, he’s just talking to the Witch, and you can easily make the argument that he honestly doesn’t know better. The Witch offers to make him a prince but asks him to bring his brother and sisters first because it’s the law to check out a person’s family before giving them a position of power like that, or else the kingdom might be tainted, which seems like a perfectly reasonable request. Still, it could be argued that Edmund should know better, considering how the Witch proceeds to plainly spell out her evil plan to the dwarf, but here we have an issue of diegesis. Diegetic elements are things that actually take place in the context of the story. Stage productions and musicals often have non-diegetic parts like asides to the audience and musical numbers which are more symbolic or imaginary and don’t really affect the plot or characters in any way. Realistically, of course everyone in the audience knows that the witch is obviously evil, but in-story, she is having a private conversation with the dwarf while Edmund is somewhat distracted nearby. Now in the book, the first betrayal comes when Edmund and Lucy return from Narnia and he tells Peter and Susan he was just humoring her by playing along with her game. Then she runs off crying and is generally miserable for a while, but once they all get back to Narnia, she’s quick to accept Edmund’s apology, as forced as it is. In the musical, obviously this doesn’t happen. Instead, Edmund and Lucy both return to the lamppost just as Peter and Susan come through the wardrobe. Lucy inexplicably doesn’t want to go home immediately even though she tells them Mr. Tumnus told her about the Witch, and he presumably let her go so she could get home where it’s safe. And now that they’re all in Narnia, Edmund obviously doesn’t want them to go either, so he says there’s no such thing as witches, he didn’t see the faun (which is actually true), and that Lucy is lying or crazy. And of course this is bad, but what gets me here is the others’ response. Edmund says, “There’s no such thing as witches,” and the others believe him without question. Peter, Susan, look, I get that your little sister may be super annoying, but you’re in another world that you just found in the back of a wardrobe. It kind of sounds like you’re just being arbitrary skeptics here. It’s really a shame that they cut the professor’s part here, because this would be a fine time for someone to come along and ask what they’re teaching in schools these days. And this, combined with Edmund taking off, leads to Lucy declaring that she hates him and being generally unpleasant to him for the duration of the play. It’s like she completely forgot that her new friend Mr. Tumnus was just about to turn her in to the Witch because that was literally his job and she forgave him immediately. In the book, it was Lucy’s kindness to him that made him question his loyalty to the Witch, but in the musical, Lucy and kindness don’t really seem to go together all that much. So instead of insisting on going home immediately, Lucy leads them to Mr. Tumnus’ house, which has already been completely destroyed by wolves in just the few minutes they were all talking. Then the beavers show up and they’re initially suspicious of the children, as if the prophecy about their coming isn’t a major plot point and they’re not the first humans to show up in Narnia in a hundred years. So they decide to take the children to meet Aslan so he can decide if they’re the right ones. From the other Narnians’ initial reactions later on, it doesn’t seem like they’re a sign of hope or anything; everyone is skeptical because they’re just kids. They may be needed, but they’re not particularly wanted, and they don’t really want to be there themselves, so the prophecy seems really arbitrary here. Then after a few more minutes of dialogue and a song, they find that Edmund has disappeared. While there’s the acknowledgement that the Witch’s food is enchanted and later that Peter was kind of a jerk to him, but they still basically blame him for everything and don’t really cut him any slack. They ask how he could betray him when a better question would be, why wouldn’t he? This was also an issue in the Disney version. The BBC version may be less visually impressive, but at least in that one the children seemed to actually like each other instead of fighting constantly. All that said, the musical may not be the best adaptation, but if you’re a fan of the series, it’s still at least worth a look. In some productions, often by Christian schools, they choose to improvise some of the lines and make Lucy less annoying, which helps a lot. |
A review of the Books of the Infinite trilogy (Prophet, Judge, King) by R. J. Larson (9/2/17) How it started Averted tropes/cliches The Plot If you know anything about the Old Testament, you know that prophets were generally disliked. Look at 1 Kings 22. After the years of peace between Syria and Israel, Jehoshaphat, the good king of Judah came down to visit Ahab, the wicked king of Israel, who wanted to go and take Ramothgilead. And Jehoshaphat said, Yeah, okay, I’m with you, but maybe we should enquire of the LORD first. So Ahab called about four hundred false prophets together, who all promised them victory. Jehoshaphat must have sensed that something was up, because he asked if there was a prophet of the LORD there they could ask. And Ahab said, Yeah, there is this one guy, Micaiah the son of Imlah, but I hate him, because he never tells me what I want to hear. A prophet’s job is to speak for God and warn the people of upcoming judgment if they fail to listen and change their ways. As a general rule, real prophets don’t go around like, Hey, don’t worry about a thing, everything is great, and it’s going to stay great forever. And as a general rule, the people who need the warning most won’t want to hear it. So if a prophet is well-liked by everyone, they’re probably not doing their job. So Ela ends her engagement to the man she was supposed to marry, says goodbye to her parents, gives a parting message to the chief priest, and leaves town with her sister, who has an incurable premature aging condition. Meanwhile, there’s some very important political stuff going on in the nearby countries which would take a while to explain, so you’d better just read the book, or at least the back cover summary. How not to write a review Then there was someone who didn’t like Judge because they didn’t know who the characters were or understand the setting or what was going on. They said they didn’t read the first book. You can’t just pick up the second book of a series where the author has created a whole new world and then expect them to give an overview where they spell everything out, like it’s chapter 2 of a Baby-sitters Club book. We have the cover, a decent back cover summary, a map, and a handy pronunciation guide with a quick blurb about the characters. Read the books in order and you’ll understand them just fine. Someone wrote that they stopped reading 6% of the way through. Six percent. I understand not finishing a book. I just don’t understand taking the time to write out a review just to say you didn’t read the book. I have the Kindle version, so I checked. At six percent, hardly anything has happened yet. It’s chapter 2. They haven’t even left home yet. Frodo Baggins doesn’t even leave the Shire until chapter 3. Okay, so maybe the first book doesn’t start out particularly fast-paced, but be patient. There may be things that seem like they don’t matter at first. Take notes because they will be important later. Someone else apparently just hates YA fiction in general. Again, NO LOVE TRIANGLES. NO LOVE AT FIRST SIGHT. NO VAMPIRES, WEREWOLVES, OR ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE. Also, the characters are realistic and the plot actually makes sense. A word about pronunciation About the Realms of the Infinite books |
Why I’m not an English Teacher, the Most Important Question in Teaching, and How to Cheat Properly (8/30/17) Why? Why are we here? Why do we have to study this? Why is this important? Even if students aren’t asking these questions out loud, they’re thinking them. And sometimes the most honest answer might be, I DON’T KNOW OKAY? NOW STOP ASKING. You’re in school because it’s legally required, assuming you’ve ruled out homeschooling and other alternatives. I’m here because this is a job that pays money and I need money to buy food and pay bills and those student loans I took out when I thought this was the job I wanted. We’re studying this because the school board/department head/state decided this was important and it may or may not be on a test that may or may not affect how much money we get. It’s hard to teach something you don’t care about. It’s hard to learn something you doubt you’ll ever use again. So let’s put down the reading lists and the worksheets and answer this one simple question: Why? Because there are important themes and ideas we should consider and discuss. Because this is an opportunity to expand your horizons and learn about other people/places/times. Because this is a better way of learning new vocabulary than just sitting down with a list of words and a dictionary. Because this is a genuinely interesting book that someone somewhere thought you should read. I still don’t want to read it. Want to know a secret? It doesn’t matter. Not really. Not always. Because English class isn’t just about reading a book, checking it off your to-do list, and dropping it without another thought. It’s about understanding. It’s about why we read and why authors write and why what they’re saying matters. It’s about forming and discussing and even arguing opinions. Generally speaking, we’re good at having opinions. We live in the age of social media. Some of us have no problem picking up a paper or turning on the news or scrolling through Twitter, forming an opinion, and blasting it at anyone who will listen, regardless of whether or not we’ve fully thought it out, regardless of whether or not anyone wants to hear it, regardless of potential repercussions or consequences. But the moment we get an assignment to write an essay or give a speech and do a presentation where we essentially have to present and defend an opinion, suddenly it’s all, This is sooo haaard. Whyyy do we have to do this? If you’re not going to read what’s assigned, at least have the decency to cheat properly. This doesn’t mean just Googling the title and summarizing the first result you get. Read the Sparknotes introduction. Find out who the characters are. What do they want? What do they need? What do they have to overcome? What do they believe, and does the author believe? Are they portrayed sympathetically or unsympathetically? What do they learn? Read the summary. Read the important quotes. Read the important themes and ideas. Form opinions. Do you agree or disagree with the ideas being presented? Is the plot realistic? Are the characters likable? Would you recommend this book to others or burn every copy you can get your hands on? Beyond Sparknotes, Wikipedia, Goodreads, watch the movie. Buy it, rent it, borrow it from the library. Maybe you can even find some clips on YouTube. See what others are saying about how it compares to the book. Try IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. At least if you’re reading Shakespeare, this isn’t really cheating. It’s a play. It was meant to be watched. Listen to people who are genuinely excited about the book explain it. (Seriously, watch Ben Crystal on Speaking the bright and beautiful English of Shakespeare and then tell me Shakespeare is boring and incomprehensible. I dare you.) Get interested. Get excited. Ask questions. Form opinions. Then maybe read the book and actually enjoy it. Or listen to the audiobook. When it comes to writing persuasive essays, you need two things: a strong opinion and someone who disagrees with it. Ideally you should start with something you genuinely care about, because if even you don’t care about what you’re saying, why would you expect anyone else to? So go ahead and pick up a paper or turn on the news or scroll through Twitter, or just sit down and ask yourself, what realy matters to you? What do you believe in? What would you change about the world? Then find someone who thinks differently. This is your target audience, and your goal is to persuade them, so keep it civil and try to find some common ground. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, because if you’re just being loud and abrasive, a lot of people might hear you, but no one is actually going to listen, though you might get tons of support from others who hold your views. Listen to what the other side is actually saying without taking it as a personal attack. Show that you understand their values and reasoning, then explain your own. Find supporting evidence from reliable sources they won’t immediately brush off as being clearly biased against them, because no one wants to listen to someone they feel isn’t even giving them a fair chance. Cite your sources properly. Finally, proofread, because it might be hard for some people to take your argument seriously if it looks like spellcheck ate your paper. |
Why I don’t post more (5/2/17) I have a variety of interests and ideas I’d like to share with others. Don’t bore them. You’re not that interesting and they’ve got their own stuff going on. But I have this one idea– It’s been done before, probably more than once, and probably better. I don’t care. I’m going to sit down and write. . . . . . . Can’t find the right words? This made a lot more sense five minutes ago. Maybe you should edit that part. And that one. And– Forget it. I’m almost half done. Let’s just play around with the background a bit and then take a quick break. . . . Are you coming back to this? Can’t now. Time for work. . . . How about now? I just got home. How about a snack first? Oh, hey, Facebook, long time no see. . . . How about now? Maybe later. I have new ideas I want to think over first. I give up. |
Why are there so many churches and translations of the Bible? (1/30/17) Today, there’s also the matter of personal preference. Some people prefer more traditional worship and services. They understand and appreciate the meaning and significance of the King James English, the old hymns, and the traditions. They want clarity, simplicity, and a lack of distractions that comes from pastors more concerned with making the message relevant and appealing to everyone than teaching the uncompromised truth. Other people just don’t get it. The Bible says we should worship with understanding, and some people just don’t understand King James English. Or Latin. Maybe they’re new and have a hard time following along with all the thee’s and thou’s and deep theological concepts everyone else seems to understand perfectly. Maybe the traditional approach just feels unnatural and intimidating and they just can’t relate what they hear in church to their daily lives. Worship shouldn’t be all about our emotions, but it also shouldn’t be completely dry, joyless, and confusing. The Bible calls us to live in peace with each other as much as possible, and in the end, it’s better for us to meet in smaller groups for a few hours each week and consider each other brothers and sisters in Christ than to meet together in one big group and end up constantly rubbing each other the wrong way. Then there’s the issue of false teaching. Maybe the leaders are prideful, arrogant, living in blatant sin, abusing their authority, twisting scriptures to fit their own agendas, and refusing to listen to anyone. Some churches are spiritually dead or dying, and there is only so much anyone can do to fix the situation. Sometimes when the problem is too pervasive and no one is willing to change, the only thing left to do is leave and start over elsewhere. When it comes to different versions of the Bible, whenever a work is translated from one language to another, there’s going to be some room for variation, because it’s nearly impossible to create a prefect word-for-word translation that makes sense and captures the exact meaning of the original language. Maybe the original word or phrase in question has more than one meaning in context. Maybe grammatical differences between the languages would make a direct word-for-word translation awkward and hard to understand. Sometimes it’s a matter of our own language changing, so the things that made perfect sense to people reading the King James Version when it was published in 1611 are less clear now. What really matters is that with a few exceptions, most versions stay faithful to the original text and say essentially the same thing, just in slightly different words. |
The Reason We Celebrate (12/25/16) First, we have to understand God’s holiness and how our sin separates us from Him. The purpose of the Old Testament sacrificial system was to continually remind the nation of Israel of the cost of their sin and to provide the people with a temporary covering, though as Hebrews 10:4 says, the blood of animal sacrifices could never make full atonement to erase people’s sins or fully reconcile them with God. Even so, the priests had to inspect the sacrifices to make sure they were perfect and unblemished before they could be accepted, because God’s holiness demands nothing less than absolute perfection. By that reasoning, there is nothing anyone can do, no amount of good works, that could possibly erase their own sins, much less pay for the sins of another. Then we look to Jesus, called the Son of God for the simple reason that He didn’t have a human father, so those who believed in Him could only refer to Him as the Son of God. If He was nothing more than a man, He would have inevitably been a sinner like the rest of us and His sacrifice would have been ultimately meaningless. If the Son who came to die for us was anything less than God, it would be difficult to consider the God who sent Him a good, loving Father. But God didn’t just send someone, a human hero or even one of his best angels to save us. He personally came to Earth Himself, put Himself in our place, and paid the price for our sins so we wouldn’t have to. He couldn’t simply tolerate or forget the sin that separated us from Him, but He could and did pay our debt so anyone and everyone who trusted in Him could be saved. And this is why we celebrate. |
A Controversial Question (1/19/15)
First, hopefully we can say with a fair amount of confidence that nobody simply “loses” their salvation by accident. Of course saving faith will always result in fruit and true Christians will not continue in habitual sin, but to say that our salvation depends on our performance is to ignore all the Bible has to say on grace and Jesus’ sacrifice being sufficient atonement for all our sins. (See also: Walking Away From Legalism: The Journey Towards Grace) That said, the Bible does warn against and contain examples of people making a choice to abandon and renounce their faith. Some will say these individuals were never actually saved to begin with, but considering that these people were at one time professing believers who were accepted as part of the church, showed outward signs of faith, and may have genuinely believed themselves to be saved, it doesn’t seem particularly helpful or safe to assure anyone that they are all set for eternity and then claim they must have never been saved to begin with if their lives show otherwise. |
What Darwin Didn’t Know (10/6/14) A simple example is eye color. The gene for brown eyes is dominant, while blue eyes are recessive. Therefore, if a person has blue eyes, he must have two recessive genes for blue eyes. Two people with blue eyes typically cannot have a child with brown eyes, though two people who are heterozygous for eye color (one dominant and one recessive gene, therefore with brown eyes) may have a child with blue eyes. As demonstrated by a Punnett square, they would have a 25% chance of having a child with blue eyes. So if a random group of people with brown eyes settled a small island, it is likely that within a generation or two, there would be a fairly significant number of people with blue eyes on this island. At the same time, if it was a small group and half the people had blue eyes, within a few generations, it is possible that most people on the island would have blue eyes. Both are examples of the basic laws of inheritance at work, but someone with no understanding of how dominant and recessive genes work might come to the wrong conclusion that the occurrence of blue eyes in the population might be a result of something in the environment. Darwin didn’t know how dominant and recessive genes worked. And while he had probably studied finches before, he probably hadn’t paid much attention to the differences among them. He might have thought they all looked fairly similar and couldn’t have told individuals apart at a glance, the same way that people might confuse strangers of similar height, weight, skin tone, hair, and eye color. It probably wasn’t until he saw how similar the finches on each island were to one another that he took notice of the diversity possible among them, but contrary to his theory, this is no evidence of evolution as the result of new genetic material created by some sort of random mutation. Imagine a group of 100 people from your neighborhood, school, or workplace. Depending on where you live, this group might be very diverse or very similar. Either way, they probably won’t be an accurate representation of the human race, your country, or your state as a whole, because the sample size is so small and not completely random. This is your flock. Say you’re all taking a cruise somewhere out in the ocean when your ship capsizes and you all escape on lifeboats. Say you end up on three islands and rescue doesn’t come. Already, because your starting populations are so small, chances are high that they won’t be representative of the population as a whole. In small populations, there is a high chance that traits which are uncommon among the larger population may be found in a significant percentage of the population. When a small group settles an area, after a few generations, their descendants inevitably begin to share many similar traits, regardless of how common they are outside the group. Then there are also the environmental factors. If one group ends up on an island with no grocery stores, food banks, or social services, where adults who can’t climb well won’t be able to get enough food, within a few years, the average climbing skills among the population will increase significantly, because those individuals who would bring the group average down will be less likely to survive, and those who do may be dismissed and shunned as liabilities. Even so, that isn’t an accurate representation of what happened with the Galapagos finches, because for the most part, climbing is a skill which may be taught and improved, while traits like beak length cannot be changed simply because there is a need. Jesus said, “Can anyone by worrying add an hour to his life or a cubit to his height?” Traits like hair, eye, and skin color can’t be changed by an act of will, and there are examples of times when they have been issues of life and death. For example, the Nazis wanted to create a perfect Aryan race of blond, blue-eyed people. Imagine if you were living in a small European town during World War II and the Nazis arrived. They might remove some people with the wrong look or kill them outright, and they might make it harder for those remaining to get work or food. If they stayed in power, it is likely that before long, the majority of the population would fit the look they idealized. Likewise, the finches’ appearance can be explained by existing genetic diversity, the relative probability that a trait will benefit an individual by helping them survive, and a change in the relative frequency of that trait within a population as a result, rather than by random genetic mutations somehow caused by environmental factors. Even if there were mutations, there would be a far greater chance of them being harmful or simply neutral than beneficial to the individual in any given situation. The simplest explanation is that if a group of birds with varying beak lengths and sizes landed on an island where most of the food required a longer, thinner beak to get to, the birds with the shorter beaks would be more likely to starve without passing on their genes to the next generation. Why does it matter? Darwin spoke at a time with many questions about how life came into being, but few satisfying answers for those inquiring minds who considered the Genesis account a simplistic, unsubstantiated story. The most gifted pastors and theologians of the day couldn’t have anticipated the new challenge to their faith, a theory they couldn’t fully refute without the help of science that was yet unknown. So at a time when people believed in “simple” lifeforms and most didn’t understand the basics of genetic inheritance, Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection seemed only logical, leading many to abandon their faith in light of the new scientific explanation. In the decades that followed, the lack of solid evidence led to many questions and theories, as well as fabricated evidence from both sides. Since public opinion on the subject has become so polarized, it should come as no surprise that the debate continues with no clear winner. Today, proponents of evolution argue that creationists simply ignore the evidence due to their bias, often ignoring their own biases in the process. The simple truth is that given recent scientific discoveries and developments, the case for creationism is worthy of serious consideration, while evolution is too simplistic to adequately explain the origins of life. |