Archive for the ‘Life’ Category

Say What?

June 27, 2022

I’m sorry, can you explain this?

‘Experts’ are warning of a rise in infant mortality rate with the undoing of Roe v. Wade. Claiming an additional 75,000 births per year could be expected if abortion is not readily available on demand everywhere.

Compare that to over 60,000,000 abortions since 1973.

First off, if we are worried about infant mortality, shouldn’t we be more worried about the number of infants killed via abortion rather than the statistically much smaller number of infants potentially at risk through pregnancy complications? If we’re going to throw numbers around, which ones are bigger?

And doesn’t infant mortality imply that unborn children are actually, you know, children? Oh wait – I forget – they’re only human children if you want them to be. Otherwise they’re fingernails. My bad.

Moreover, they’re predicting a greater impact for people of color, which to my mind means that people of color were aborting babies at a higher percentage than people-of-no-color (?). So if more people of color were getting abortions, then how is it that more of their children are going to die without abortion?

I’m also curious about blanket statements such as this:

Pregnant people of color have long been marginalized and neglected in the medical system, frequently experiencing racism and discrimination at all points of care.

I’d be curious to see supporting documentation on this. But to just throw it out there as an accepted fact? Hmmm. Problematic to me.

And of course the logical conclusion is that the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade is racist. If people aren’t allowed to abort their unborn children before childbirth stage, more of them are going to die.

What?

My Technology Timeline

June 14, 2022

As someone who has been on the Internet for over 30 years (I was online before there was a World Wide Web and the graphical interface so ubiquitous to the online experience now), this is a really cool stroll down memory lane, as well as a fantastic visualization of the Big Dogs of Internet companies and how they have changed over time.

Which onramp did you use to get on the information highway and when? I had my first dial-up account in the early 90’s, and was checking e-mail through Unix-based systems like Pine and ELM. My route into IT was unexpected (and for some hilarious), but it was a part of roughly two decades of my professional life to some degree.

I remember the arrival of Yahoo! and providing internal training to staff at the corporate IT training company I joined in the mid-90’s, teaching them about the rapidly shifting Internet landscape as Yahoo! and other companies began to gain on American Online (AOL) in terms of providing portals or gateways to online web sites and destinations. Being able to see how companies arrived, jockeyed for position, enjoyed their moment in the sun, and then disappeared is fascinating. Good to find useful and fun things on the Internet instead of just fear-mongering and mis/dis-information!

Legislating Reality

May 22, 2022

Getting a kick out of all the uproar now that people are finally doing the math (or having the math done for them) and finding out Laura Dern was 23 in the original Jurassic Park movie, cast opposite her leading man Sam Neil who was 20 years her senior.

A few interesting observations.

I’ll assume Dern and other appropriately anti-patriarchy folks talked with Amber Heard a scant seven years ago when she married Johnny Depp, who is 23 years her senior. In real life.

In case folks are worried this was just an example of Hollywood wanting a younger woman with an older male actor, the book apparently also indicates there is a roughly 20-year age difference in the couple.

Dern herself notes at that at the time it seemed “appropriate” to love her co-star despite the age-difference.

However with 30 years to look back on it, she no longer feels this ought to have been the case then, or should be the case now.

In which case, what would an appropriate age difference be between a man and a woman? Or is a 20-year gap acceptable so long as there are an equal number of similarly profiled pairings? So for every Heard-Depp with 20+ years on the guy, there needs to be another high-profile couple where the woman is 20 years older than the man?

Makes me wonder why it felt “appropriate” to her back then but not so now? It seems clear she has a good relationship with her co-star. I’m sure that made their pairing all those years ago much more natural and easy for her to believe. And which may lead one to the conclusion that it isn’t simply male-dominance forcing young women into relationships with older men, but rather there are situations where the age difference (in either direction) seems less important than the quality of the connection and chemistry.

I won’t argue Hollywood clearly has a bias favoring younger actresses paired with older actors. I won’t even argue this is problematic at some level. But what level? At a patriarchy level? What does that even mean in this context? Was it wrong of the author to conceive of such a relationship? Wrong for Hollywood to cast it? Wrong for Dern and/or Neil to accept it? What should they have insisted on instead?

As a father of a daughter, what should I tell my daughter? Certainly if she were to be courted by a significantly older guy I would have my concerns. But should I tell her he can’t be more than 10 years her senior? Five? Fifteen? Should I recognize that sometimes, love transcends age and it isn’t exploitation or the patriarchy or anything nefarious? I’d like to think that with my daughter – as well as my sons – the quality of the person they consider spending time with is going to factor more heavily than simply an age, while trying not to be naive about the risks posed in potential spouses who are considerably older. But to simply declare an arbitrary age as disgusting or inappropriate seems just as disempowering as whatever alleged patriarchy threats Dern imagines.

Some people age better than others, not just physically but as a person, making them attractive to a broader age-range of the opposite sex. Hollywood typically shows us younger women with older men, but I believe it probably happens the other direction just as frequently. The important thing in both the fictional and real world is that the relationship works. And that will necessitate additional efforts when there is a significant age disparity involved.

At least we’ve all got something new to be indignant about. Lord knows, that’s what we need.

When You Have a Lord

May 21, 2022

So, just to clarify – Christians (including Roman Catholics) profess a personal faith in not simply an impersonal deity but rather a very personal God. This God is accorded their faith and obedience not simply by dint of His existence as their Creator, but also because of His far more personal interaction as their Savior. Specifically, this Triune God entered into human history in the person of Jesus of Nazareth specifically to offer his life and death up in exchange for ours, freeing us from the prison of sin we would otherwise be lost in eternally.

This is standard Christian stuff, hardly some sort of fringe or esoteric assertion. All Christians believe this. Their Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ commands their ultimate allegiance. In any situation where their own personal preferences or desires run contrary to his, they are to die to self, to set aside what they want in order to try and be obedient to what they are commanded by God in His revealed and inspired Word, the Bible. In some cases this may be a singular event of obedience contrary to their impulse – the resistance of temptation in a given moment. For others it may be a daily sacrifice of their desires and impulses to be obedient to their Lord.

Finally the Catholic Church is deciding to remind it’s flock of this, in a very high-profile situation. Arguably one of the most powerful women in American politics is Senator Nancy Pelosi from California. She is also one of the most unabashedly in favor of abortion on demand. She also claims to be a faithful Roman Catholic.

As further clarification, the Roman Catholic Church – along with 2000 years of Christian history around the world – rejects abortion as the immoral and unlawful murder of an unborn child. It isn’t just a small issue of esoteric doctrine, it is central to the Christian faith. Despite the efforts of many Christians in the West in the last 100 years to justify allowing it unilaterally.

Now the Archbishop who oversees the See of which Pelosi is a communicant member has issued this decree – Pelosi is not to seek to receive, or be given if she does so seek – Holy Communion until such time as she repents of her sin (public, repeated behavior against Church doctrine and Biblical teaching). Holy Communion is one of the most sacred rites of the Christian church, traced back to Jesus’ commands the night before his execution. While differences of opinion (unfortunately) abound regarding the nature of this sacrament and what happens in it and how and why, most every Christian group acknowledges that whether weekly or quarterly or annually, Christians ought to partake of it. It does not in and of itself provide salvation, but it is as I like to call it, the taste of forgiveness, the tangible, physical reminder of the greatest blessing we receive in Jesus Christ.

This is a big deal.

Firstly, it is not intended simply as a punishment. It is intended as a the gravest warning the Church can give to a member that said member’s public behavior and attitudes place them in mortal peril, place them at risk of being outside the kingdom of God and facing eternal separation from God by their choice to directly ignore His Word.

This is not political. Such a stance should have been drawn hard in the sand decades ago. Had it been, perhaps we wouldn’t be over 60 million dead children in the US because of Roe v. Wade. Perhaps it would have been a shocking call to jar the consciences of those who profess to know best what is right and wrong. It will be panned in the press as a political move, but ultimately it is a singularly personal call to the individual Nancy Pelosi to recognize she is wrong and to repent of her sins and be restored to the fellowship of believers in Jesus Christ.

Interestingly – tragically – in this. Pelosi has apparently refused to respond to the Archbishop’s requests to speak with her personally and privately on this matter. Now, we all may have differences of opinion on ecclesiology and church infra-structure, but that’s all quite secondary. Pelosi identifies herself as a Roman Catholic, which means she also, in addition to having a Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ, also has a series of offices and individuals tasked with guiding her in this earthly life in accordance with the Word of God, and thereby hopefully helping her avoid the dangerous sort of sin that could lead her to reject the grace of God in Jesus Christ for her own personal – and erroneous – ideas. Ideas like life is subject to government regulation of any kind, and that a person is defined by the number of cells they possess rather than their inherent identity as a unique creation of a loving God.

I applaud Archbishop Cordileone for this difficult step. It’s a step no spiritual overseer ever wants to have to make, because it means all other efforts to call someone to repentance have failed and they must be treated as an unbeliever in the hopes they will return to obedience to their God and Savior (1 Corinthians 5, etc.). A pastor or bishop or archbishop or pope never takes delight in doing this sort of thing. But there is a lot at stake for Nancy Pelosi eternally, and for the many people who look to her as a guide on morality. I pray she heeds the call to repentance. It won’t be easy. But now she should clearly understand what is at risk – eternity itself.

Because there can only be one Lord. And while Pelosi is free to serve her country, she does so guided by the Word of God, and is not free to act or speak against it except at the peril of her own soul, and the souls of those who look to her for guidance. What a beautiful example of humility and obedience and repentance she could be! We should all be praying for that.

Soft Peddling Drugs

May 17, 2022

I hate articles like this. I have no idea who this guy is and have never heard his music or witnessed his lifestyle. But he’s dead and probably didn’t need to die according to the tone of the article, citing past battles over the years with drugs and alcohol. But this is glossed over with the following statement he was clean and sober of late.

We’ve seen no shortage of luminous, talented celebrities dying before any of us were ready to handle their absence. And in no small measure, a stunning majority likely had their battles over the years with drugs and alcohol, even if they had eventually given up such habits or bowed to the necessities of age in growing more moderate. Without fail, the articles about their passing never condemn drug and alcohol abuse as true contributing factors in any substantive ways. Even if autopsy results credit drugs and alcohol, this is often chalked up to the celebrity lifestyle, as if talent is some sort of immunity against the very physical as well as mental and spiritual debilitations of substance abuse, prescribed or otherwise.

Until success is no longer viewed as justification for such abuse, deaths like this will continue to occur. None of us knows the number of our days, to be sure. But certainly certain practices up the odds that we will leave this earth sooner that we (or others) might prefer.

Granted, the Rolling Stones are a singular exception to this, but exceptions by no means invalidate well-defined rules and expectations!

So it’s too bad this guy died. Too bad he might have come to his senses too late, after apparently considerable damage had already been done, and I pray his hope and faith was ultimately not in his dealer but in his Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ. I pray other rising stars take seriously these examples, and I pray the media-subset that thrives on celebrity lives and lifestyles would quit condoning and approving of such indulgences with a wink-wink-nod-nod sort of reporting style.

Too Good to Pass Up!

May 16, 2022

One more nearly forgotten article, but one too rich in possibilities and disappointments to pass up!

Imagine being attacked by a random person, dragged from your house, stabbed multiple times and left for dead. Imagine being able to drag yourself back inside and call for help, only to have the assailant return and try to batter his way into your home again.

What would your attitude towards your attacker be?

If you’re Christian, you should know what your response should be, right?

Forgiveness?

Not the sloppy, cultural forgiveness of pretending a wrong didn’t really happen, but the forgiveness that acknowledges a wrong was done and chooses to forgive because we are daily (hourly) forgiven in Christ. Could you imagine yourself doing that? What about forgiving someone who sought to hurt someone you love?

That’s what makes this article so tantalizing and yet frustrating. Go ahead and read it. It isn’t long. How does it resonate with you?

As the judge says at the end of the article in praising the victim, “If it (is the motive for not requesting an apology)is the consequence of faith I envy it.”

The article doesn’t use the word forgiveness, but it’s a good example of what it might look like. It never clarifies a motivation for such an incredibly loving response to an apparently random and inconceivable act of violence. The victim hints that the comfort and status of his own life compared to the assailants leads him to the conclusion he has no reason to bear a grudge of any kind. Would he respond differently if he had been assaulted by someone more successful, more comfortable?

The victim’s statement at the end of the article is further maddening. I think in these situations there’s no right, so go with it. What does that even mean? He likes the idea of providing people with tools to think about hard situations differently, but doesn’t provide any tools at all, just an outcome. I’d love to know more about his rationale, what led him to seek for and be concerned about the welfare of his assailant as much as his own.

It’s a worthy example of what forgiveness might look like, minus any reason for choosing this path over a more bitter response. I presume he would consider a more bitter response less ideal than his own, but then claims there’s really no basis at all for how to respond. Such logic essentially removes the criminality of the assailant, if there is no objective guidance about moral truth to help determine not only what actions are right and wrong, but what proper responses are when such boundaries are violated.

Lenten Poetry

March 7, 2022

It may at first seem counterintuitive, that in the midst of Lent we could find and enjoy beauty. But contrition and repentance are not the same thing at all as boringness or repetition or monotony or ugliness. If anything, our Lenten contemplations should drive us in part by comparison – the aching awareness of our sinfulness against the panoramic beauty of creation. Our unfaithfulness in comparison to God the Father’s endless and bounteous and undeserved fidelity. We do not deserve anything, and we are given so much. So much that is good and beautiful.

And these days when beauty and good seem even more elusive, when war and rumors of war rattle our consciences and make our creaturely comforts somehow condemning in the face of others’ utter ruin, these days we need the beauty. Amidst the ashes of war. Amidst the ashes of Lent.

So read this. It’s short, but it will take some time to both understand all of it and resonate with it. I’ve mentioned Wendell Berry before, but this is a good reminder to me I need to find more of him. I need his beauty, that does not seek to cover over or temporarily displace the evil and hardness of the world and our lives, but points us to the greatest beauty yet to come, and which already spreads – if only palely – its glow on all beauty here and now as well as all ugliness.

What’s the Moral?

January 22, 2022

I read this short book summary and can’t stop thinking about it.

I’m not so interested in the anecdotal story but the conclusion drawn from it at the end – in general, that people should choose ethical behavior in case there is a possible, undetermined and unknowable material benefit to them. In other words, rather than responding to a given situation based on an internalized ethos, people must be encouraged to rationally process all of their options and then select one based upon possible personal benefit.

It sounds reasonable enough. But it’s troubling and I assume indicative of larger ethical and moral issues challenging our culture right now. More and more, people do not have an underlying moral and ethical framework which dictates to them the appropriate course of action in any number of possible situations. As such, morality and ethics often gets boiled down to a matter of personal benefit. Actions we once considered moral and ethical in and of themselves (not stealing, returning lost items when possible, etc.) now are only opted for when a maximum personal benefit is evaluated.

Years ago when I was teaching ethics in technology at university I discovered this troubling reality. Students were quick to affirm that shoplifting a sweater was wrong, but they saw no such problem with illegally downloading software or movies and video games. Their explanation was that they felt they were far more likely to get caught physically shoplifting an item, whereas the odds of them being caught and then prosecuted for digital theft were slim to none. Their definition of the right thing to do was determined solely by personal benefit. They rationalized digital theft as really of no difference to the producers of the content (who were already rich) and justified by their own current impoverished circumstances as students.

I was raised however with a different set of criteria, a criteria that still guides my actions and decisions often at a subconscious level. This criteria is a codified and unified system identifying some actions as right and others as wrong. My personal benefit in any given situation is rarely a factor. There is simply a right course to be followed. While I could follow the wrong course – and at times have – I would do so knowing what I was doing was wrong. I might try to justify it on any number of subjective grounds but I would still know such attempts were ultimately inadequate and the reality remained that I was doing something I should not do, whether I personally benefited from the decision or not.

This system of criteria was embedded in me through my religious upbringing as a Christian. It wasn’t a matter of economics. Certainly finding a wallet with money in it might have been very advantageous to me as a young person, but I understood clearly that this was not the primary consideration. The primary consideration was whether or not I could return the wallet and everything in it to the rightful owner. Certainly there might be a temptation to keep the money, justifying it as a small loss to the owner but not nearly as severe as someone more dishonest who might attempt to steal more by utilizing whatever debit or credit cards were inside. But that temptation – whether heeded or not – was recognized and categorized as exactly that. The right course of action was clear and not dependent on whether someone might be watching me or not, or whether I would benefit more or less.

A morality or ethics based purely on economic considerations can hardly be called that. Economics can justify certain courses of action based on personal benefit, but cannot ensure that such personal benefit is uniformly present in any given situation. What results is a very situational and subjective approach to morality and ethics. If I’m as positive as possible there won’t be any negative consequences to my actions, my actions become permissible and even defensible. This excessively complicates our actions and makes them externally unpredictable.

Economics is a poor substitute for Truth, even when economics might approve of a course of action I would personally prefer, but which Truth dictates is not permissible. Yes, there are times when doing the right thing might result in further benefit than peace of mind. This is because the wisdom of God the Creator is woven into creation and cannot be completely eradicated or eliminated by our sinfulness. The truth that honesty is the right choice sometimes plays itself out in unforeseen benefits, like being approved for a loan. But even if it doesn’t, I benefit from a clear conscience and the joy of knowing my choice to deprive myself whatever benefit my wrongdoing might have brought makes the other person’s life better and easier.

However my choice is not justified by this emotional or spiritual reward. This is not a form of spiritual economics. It is not karma from Eastern religions nor is it an attempt to earn a less tangible reward as Islam would suggest, stacking up enough good deeds to outweigh my bad deeds. Rather, it is an understanding that this is who I have been made to be – someone who is able and willing, albeit imperfectly – to recognize and live the way I and all of creation was intended to live. My opting to do the right thing without regard to my personal benefit is in gratitude for the reality that my sinful (selfish) and broken self has in fact been redeemed not by my good efforts but rather by the incalculable sacrifice of the Son of God, Jesus, for me. I am now free to respond not in fear but gratitude. Not in a calculated self-seeking but in love for the God who saved me as well as those around me who I hope are also brothers and sisters in Christ.

This is not an alternate set of evaluations and computations in any given situation, but rather my condition. The air I breathe, so to speak. And I’m also still free and prone to rejecting this beautifully clean air for contaminated and unhealthy air, so to speak. I’m free to act against what I have been shown is right. But I do so at risk to myself and others, rather than benefit.

There’s an economic reversal only God is capable of!

Hard Words. But True

January 8, 2022

If you are responsible for raising children right now, read this. Or read it if you know someone responsible for raising children. If you take your Biblical Christian faith seriously and need to guide young people towards their future, ready it. It’s blunt. And maybe bluntness is something we need a bit more these days.

Law and Guilt

January 4, 2022

I don’t keep in touch with many folks from my high school days. A handful of close friends tenuously held together by intentional and not-so-intentional mini-reunions is about it. But I have another friend that has done an incredible job of keeping in touch over the years, and taking the opportunity to get together for lunch or dinner whenever we found ourselves in similar parts of the country. So it was that we were meeting the following day, Thursday, for lunch at a Mexican restaurant she suggested.

She asked me to choose a place to eat initially. I opted for a small Mexican restaurant nearby. I’d never been there but the reviews were good and the place looked pretty authentic, as opposed to the more Americanized places. But she nixed the idea because of Covid considerations. She wanted to sit outdoors, which was fine by me.

Then the night before she sent a short e-mail. Her daughter back in South Carlonia tested positive for Covid, and my friend had obviously spent a lot of time around her in the days before her trip to Arizona. My friend didn’t have any symptoms but wanted to warn me in case I preferred to cancel. I didn’t, and we met as planned.

There were tears in her eyes as we sat across the table from each other. Tears of frustration and anger and fear. We did everything right. And yet her daughter had Covid. My friend’s husband had tested negative, but still the great fearful illness had infiltrated their careful defenses. Their double-dose vaccinations. Their isolating. Their fastidiousness in wearing masks. Her daughter had tearfully asked on the phone the night before if her mother was angry with her that she got sick. My friend was angry, but not with her daughter. She was angry with all the people who hadn’t been careful. Hadn’t vaccinated. Hadn’t isolated. Hadn’t insisted on masks everywhere.

Though she didn’t say it, she was angry with me, as I fit into those categories. And in the carefully constructed Covid mythology, if you followed the rules and did what you were supposed to, you could avoid the virus. Except for those people. The people who for whatever reason opted not to follow every twist and turn, scientific, political, social, calculated or arbitrary, designed to keep people safe. Healthy.

It was a striking conversation. My heart went out to her. And I gently reminded her that there are no guarantees in life. That doing all the right things might be a very good idea, but certainly could not ensure a perfectly predictable outcome. She knew this to be true, and yet she couldn’t get past the anger and fear that the efforts she and her family had made, the sacrifices they had made, were not enough to protect them.

So this article struck a chord with me, and does a better job than I might in explaining the theological metaphors illuminated in this very un-theological Covid crisis. It’s worth a read.

It isn’t that trying to do the right thing is wrong. It’s just that in this very fallible and sinfully broken world, there is no clear, perfect right thing. Nothing we can hold onto and cling to as justification for ourselves, as protection for ourselves. Nothing outside of us, nothing inside of us. Only Christ can do this for us. Can promise us to be enough. And that requires us to let go of whatever we’re clutching to and cling to him instead, acknowledging in that action our terrifying frailty and the transient and brief nature of our mortal lives.