Sighs and Musings

Books : Cat and Dog Theology

Cat and Dog Theology: Rethinking Our Relationship With Our Master

by Bob Sjogren and Gerald Robison

Anne as I saw the author of this book speak a couple weeks ago and enjoyed it enough that I bought one of his books. This is an “Every Christain should read it” book.

To quote from the book:

There’s a joke about cats and dogs that conveys their differences perfectly-

A dog says, “You pet me, you feed me, you shelter me, you love me, you must be god!”

A cat says, “You pet me, you feed me, you shelter me, you love me, I must be god!”

The books is about how some Christians are like Cats – they act as if Christianity is about them and what God can do for them, while what God is looking for are Christians who are more like dogs who realize that Christianity is about God and how glorious He is. God is not our servant who exists to meet our needs. We are His servants who exist to bring glory to Him. Sometimes God is glorified by blessing people and sometimes God is glorified by people suffering and dying as martyrs and frequently God is glorified by situations in between the two extremes. What matters though is if God is glorified, not how comfortable we are.

This is a lesson I learned a while back – I exist to serve God in whatever way brings Him glory. This book however is one of the best presentations of the idea I have seen.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Books : Books 2008/11/17

Current count of books pending to be read: 73
Read two, purchased none

Books finished this week:

The Sacred Romance: Drawing Closer To The Heart Of God

by Brent Curtis and John Eldredge

I have written before about John Eldredge’s book “Epic” (and the excellent video that was made of him “performing” it). Epic provides an excellent study in the “greater story” we are all a part of in this world. “The Sacred Romance” is essentially a longer and more complete version of the same idea with more attention paid to why we often lose sight of God’s perspective on things.

Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue: The Untold Story of English

by John McWhorter

John McWhorter is one of the linguistic writers that I consistently enjoy reading. He is both an entertaining writer (I started to annoy Anne with the number of times I started laughing while reading this book); and he has an interesting perspective on the English Language. He is also one of the linguists who believe a language is what is spoken and understood, not what the rules say it should be.

This book in specific is an examination of three key historical influences that made English Grammar (not vocabulary) what it is today. In the process of making his case for the grammatical influences of the Welsh, the Vikings, and (he believes) the Phoenicians on English, he also managed to grind a few axes he has with fellow linguists and their unwillingness to ask the question “Why?” Another great book.

Computer Games Played: Fallout 3
DVDs Watched: none

Next Book: TBD

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink

Faith , Life , Thoughts : Thinking

There's a bunch of ideas for blog posts that have been rolling around in my mind, unfortunately none of them have come to fruition for me to post today. A bunch of them are likely to end up as a long series that will run several months (not unlike the church series I did last year), occasionally interrupted by interesting life events.

While it may change form by the time I start posting it, the basic theme of the series is: "the first ten lessons I would teach if I were starting a new church". Essentially what are the core concepts I would want everyone to be on the same page on if I was starting something new.

Now I have a fairly clear idea of several of the later lessons and could write them now; but the first few are proving to be more challenging that I had expected. Part of the issue is that I am less certain these days of how to explain exactly what Jesus did on The Cross than I once was.

For almost all my Christian walk, I have been part of churches that taught "substitutionary atonement" – essentially that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins when he died on the cross; and I can explain the whole of the Bible based on that theological perspective. In fact, I wasn't even aware that there were other non-heretical points of view.

However, this past year I have come to appreciate that people like C. S. Lewis and the whole of the Eastern/Orthodox church have a different way to explain Jesus' work on The Cross (referred to by some as "Christus Victor" theology). The effect is the same; but the emphasis is different, sometimes in subtle but perhaps important ways.

I am therefore loath to write up a description of the meaning of The Cross (which strikes me to be something I would want to establish early) until I either resolve this or have some way to explain things that provides a bridge between "substitutionary atonement" and "Christus Victor" (which is what I'd really like to do).

Anyway, since I had no post today, I thought I'd at least explain why I have no post today, and thus create a post.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink

Books : Books 2008/11/10

Current count of books pending to be read: 75
Read two, purchased one

Books finished this week:

Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces

by Frank Wilczek

An interesting physics book by a Nobel Prize winner. The book is yet another survey of the current state of theoretical physics (I have read many of these); but takes a sufficiently different approach that it stays interesting and educational. The essential question of the book is – what is the origin of the property of matter known as “mass”? (Hence the pun of the book’s title.) While most physics books assume matter has mass (simply defining it as an essential property), this book asks the question “why?” and uses the examination of why matter behaves in the ways we associate with having mass to explore the current state of physics and to propose the author’s own approach to creating a grand unified theory. I very much appreciated the different perspective presented by the book, and it did allow me to see “the same old equations” in a new light.

The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy: One Book to Rule Them All

edited by Gregory Bassham and Eric Bronson

I’ve read several books from the “Popular Culture and Philosophy” series, and have almost universally enjoyed then. While they tend to be far more focused on philosophy and less on the popular culture (some of the essays barely use the popular culture material as an excuse to present philosophical ideas), they do to tend to be educational, and occasionally have been my first exposure to some of the minor historical philosophers. This book is no exception. Some of the essays are deep examinations of the philosophical questions raised by Tolkien’s works, while others use minor points in the stories as launching pads for philosophical digression. Either way, the points made are interesting and enjoyable.

Computer Games Played: Fallout 3
DVDs Watched: none

Next Book: TBD

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Observations : A Hidden Virtue of States Rights

A while back I had an interesting conversation with a friend and co-worker who was complaining about how every state in the United States had different laws covering a wide variety of subjects (rules of the road, taxes, voting, etc.). I started off giving the usual justifications (history, the fact that the United States is built on the assumption that the federal government has no authority beyond what we give it, etc.); but eventually came upon an interesting virtue of the system that I had never heard anyone propose – that the “States Rights” rule actually gives the federal government a diverse laboratory for testing government policies. By letting individual states try different solutions to problem like health care, tax policy, welfare, education, etc. the federal government can see the effect of various policies before trying them at the national level.

Want to know the effect of higher taxes? Look at the states that have higher taxes. Want to know how well certain solutions for health care work? Take a look at the states that are using them. Alternatively, want to know how to encourage innovation? Take a look at the policies in the states where a lot of innovation is taking place.

What’s interesting about this is that you can build a whole party platform around the idea. Have a party that is very supportive of trying new policies in individual states; but discourages other states from adopting them until they have been proven to work in at least one state. Then say that they will only adopt at the federal level those policies which have already been proven to work in a diverse set of states.

Now this doesn’t work for those things which only the federal government can do – basic monetary policy, military policy, etc.; but for many other areas of government this can be a quite useful way to both limit the federal government and to make sure what it does do works.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thoughts : Change. . .

. . . in this case is good.

This year, early on, the presidential race was a tough decision for me. I actually have a great deal of respect for Senator McCain. He is someone who has shown a willingness to do the right thing even when it is not politically expedient. Unfortunately, my respect for 2008 Candidate McCain waned over the course of the campaign. The John McCain that ran in 2000 (the one who created the “straight talk express”) I would have voted for easily, no question; but as time went on I started to see more and more that the McCain who was running this year was a different person. It started to become clear to me that to win the Republican nomination, he had to compromise in too many ways to be the kind of man I would vote for.

The last straw for me was the selection of Governor Palin as his running mate. Presidents don’t personally make the majority of the decisions of their administration. Most of what any “President” does is actually done by their appointees, so one of the most important things to look at in any candidate is the kinds of people they surround themselves with. The selection of Governor Palin showed me that there was just too much of a risk that he would end up surrounded with more of the same kinds of people who surrounded George W. Bush, and I do not believe the United States can afford four more years of that.

And to be clear, I am not knocking Sarah Palin as a person. Were she a member of the church I go to (which is not inconceivable since I’ve attended churches similar to the one she goes to in Wasilla), I would probably get along with her quite well. But as a candidate, she stands for what I think are the worst elements of the current Republican Party.

And that is a sad thing for me to stay. I have been a registered Republican for most of the 30 years in which I have been eligible to vote; but the party has drifted too far away from the principles I had admired in it in the past for me to stay with the party any longer. I have no intention of becoming a Democrat – there is too much they stand for that I do not agree with – but I can no longer consider myself a Republican either. This election was not only a major transition for our nation; but also for me personally.

I’ve said a lot about why I couldn’t bring myself to vote for McCain. Lest you think my decision was only a “vote against” and not a “vote for”, let me say that I greatly admire Obama as a speaker. We have not had an orator in the oval office like him in many years. Now that may seem like a small thing; but his ability to inspire, to motivate, to encourage will serve our ailing, divided nation well over the next four years. Perhaps what we need most today is someone who can remind us all of the Dream that is America; and Obama may well be the best person to do that.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Books : Books 2008/11/03

Current count of books pending to be read: 76
Read one, purchased none

Books finished this week:

The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

by Francis S. Collins

Excellent book.

Francis Collins is a geneticist who invented the “positional cloning” technique for finding genes which allowed his team to discover the genes responsible for several diseases. These discoveries led him to be appointed director of the Human Genome Project from 1993 until this year (taking over from James Watson who started it in 1990).

Francis Collins is also a Christian.

This book is essentially his answer to the question “How can someone as smart as you believe in God?” It explains how he came to his faith and how he reconciles it and his equal belief in science (including evolution). It is well written, and his arguments are clearly presented. I strongly recommend this book.

Computer Games Played: Spore, Fallout 3
DVDs Watched: none

Next Book: The Lightness of Being

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Observations : The State of Discourse

sigh

I had to bite my cyber-tongue this week reading a post on a blog I follow. It was a very political post on a normally non-political blog explaining why the foundations of the United States would shatter if Obama gets elected (or something along those lines). The statement that really caught my ire was in the midst of the author echoing the current McCain sound-bite about Obama being for redistribution of wealth, the author states how Obama is "for socialism not democracy" – as if those were mutually exclusive terms. I started to compose in my mind an explanation of how socialism is an economic system while democracy was political power system and that there is nothing to prevent someone from supporting both ideas. Fortunately I took a quick look at the existing comments and the author's replies and realized that he wasn't interested in hearing other opinions, so I didn't bother.

I wrote this post on my own blog instead.

The bottom line is that I am beyond disappointment in what passes for political discourse these days, particularly from Republicans (Obama, in my opinion, has done a bit better staying focused on issues, but only a bit). The thing is that there are real issues here which can be discussed and debated in front of the electorate - the candidates just aren't doing it.

Take the issue of "redistribution of wealth". The reality is we already have a progressive tax code. Those with higher incomes already get taxed more than those with less, so there is a graph you can plot that shows how much tax you pay for a given level of income. Both candidates want to change that curve. McCain wants to move the whole line down, while Obama wants to change the angle so it is lower at lower incomes and higher at higher incomes. Neither of these approaches represent a fundamental change in the nature of our country, despite the rhetoric.

What's more, some of that income is already being used to assist those at the bottom of the income scale, so America already practices "redistribution of wealth" (taxing the "rich" and giving to the "poor"). In addition, the recent bail-outs of major corporations also represent taking money from a bunch of people and giving it to a small subset of them – another "redistribution of wealth", although one which would appear to tax the middle class and give to the rich (perhaps with good reasons, but a redistribution nonetheless).

My point is that which approach is best between McCain and Obama is a quite reasonable question. Historically, have across the board tax cuts resulted in stronger economies where everyone's boats (even the middle class and poor) have been elevated by the rising tide? If you lower tax rates on higher income, has that in fact resulted in increased investments which resulted in higher incomes for everyone? Conversely, when we have raised the tax rate on higher incomes, has that historically caused downturns in the economy which caused the incomes of lower and middle class workers to decline? What about when we have lowered the tax rates for middle and lower income workers? Has that historically resulted in increased consumer spending which has driven the economy to grow? Or has the money just been spent on cheap imported goods and therefore taken out of our economy?

While I have some ideas on what the answers to these questions are (and therefore whose economic plan will actually be better for the country), I could be convinced to change my mind with more and better data. I would love to hear both parties make the case from hard data as to which approach is better.

But instead I get things like "Obama is a Socialist", "Obama is running for 'Redistributor in Chief'". McCain talks about how he's the one to reach across the aisle and do things in a bipartisan way; but he seems to be the one who is doing most of the name calling which, in my experience, does not lend itself to cooperation.

And the economy is not the only area where there could be serious discussion. On a variety of topics, the two candidates have made proposals that are at some level reasonable (there is at least some reason to think that they might work). So where are the people making the case why one side will be more effective than the others? Instead both sides seem to be going for an emotional response from the electorate.

I know. American voters are not intellectuals and have the attention span of a 2 year old. Emotions are the only way to connect to most of them. The candidates are only doing what works. I shouldn't expect more.

It is all very frustrating.

I do at least give credit to Obama that he occasionally tries to take the high road. I haven't seen much of that from the Republicans this year. Very disappointing from a party I called my own when I was younger.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Faith , Introspection , Observations , San Francisco : Looking at their faces

Living in the suburbs, it is often far too easy to ignore those that are different from yourself.

You can travel from your safe, middle-class home to your safe, middle-class job to a safe, middle-class shopping mall or restaurant (or safe middle-class church on Sundays) and finally back to your safe, middle-class home; all the while zipping on the expressway or freeway past those neighborhoods where other kinds of people live.

That's not to say you don't know that there are people who are different from yourself, or that you don't care about those among them who are in need. Perhaps you donate used clothes to Goodwill or the Salvation Army, or donate to charitable organizations that serve those in need. Yet in the suburbs it is very easy to take on an out-of-sight, out-of-mind perspective and to get comfortable only interacting with people similar to yourself.

Living in the city, that is much harder. Riding the subway or public bus, you come face to face with a broad range of humanity – all ethnic groups, assorted subcultures, almost all socioeconomic strata ("the rich" being excluded since even in the city they find ways to zip past everyone else). People different from you are no longer "out of sight" and therefore are much harder to keep "out of mind" (not that many people don't try).

But even in the city where you are constantly exposed to people who are different, it is easy to begin to objectify and collectivize them. There are "the poor", "the punks" the "ethnic minorities" (pick one) as if those categories define who they are. It is easy to fall into the subtle trap of thinking about the individuals who are like you are the groups who are not.

As I have been riding public transportation these past weeks, I have been taking the time to look at the faces of the other people, and I keep seeing people who really are "like me". Some may belong to different ethic groups or subcultures. Some may belong to different economic strata. Some may be drunk or on drugs. Yet looking at their faces I keep seeing people with hopes and fears are not so different from mine – people who at some level want the same things out of their lives as I do.

I keep thinking about the observation that as different as humans and chimpanzees look, 95% of their DNA is the same. I think an equivalent statement can be made about the hearts and minds people of different cultures and backgrounds – for as different as we might act and appear, deep down we are all far more the same than we are different.

I had several reasons I wanted to move to the city – access to culture, exercise (I am already losing girth), etc. I also had a sense that God had several reasons for wanting me up here (my experience is that God rarely does things for just one reason, although we may be limited to only understanding a limited number of those reasons).

I am starting to see that one of those reasons is to get me to be more comfortable interacting with people who are different from me. Put me in a room with other college educated professionals, and I do fine; but I'm never sure what to say when faced with people's whose backgrounds are very different. My sense is that this is one of the things God wants to work on in me while we live in SF, and that my rides on the subway are the beginning of those lessons.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

San Francisco : Voting in San Francisco

Anne and I will be availing ourselves of the opportunity to vote a few days early this year. They are predicting long lines on Nov 4, in part because of heavy turnout and in part because the ballot is so long. Not only do we have the various national, state, and local officials to elect; but there are also 12 state-wide ballot initiatives and 22 local ballot measures to vote on (propositions A-V). The Voter Information Pamphlet, printed and mailed to every voter in the city is 272 pages long. Some “pamphlet”!

Certainly the most entertaining of these measures (and keep in mind, this had to get the requisite number of signatures to appear on the ballot at all) is local Proposition R “Shall the City change the name of the ‘Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant’ to the ‘George W. Bush Sewage Plant’.” Say what you will about San Franciscans, they do have a sense of humor.

Posted by Steven at 05:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)